On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:22:14PM +0200, Volker Reichelt wrote:
[...]

Not sure if the warning is too useful, but in any case...

> +  /* Emit warning.  */
> +  gcc_rich_location richloc (token->location);
> +  richloc.add_fixit_remove ();
> +  if (colon_token->type == CPP_COLON)
> +    richloc.add_fixit_remove (colon_token->location);
> +
> +  switch (message_id)
> +    {
> +    case 1:
> +      warning_at_rich_loc (&richloc, OPT_Waccess_specifiers_,
> +                        "redundant %qE access-specifier",
> +                        token->u.value);
> +      inform (next_token->location, "directly followed by another one here");
> +      break;
> +
> +    case 2:
> +      warning_at_rich_loc (&richloc, OPT_Waccess_specifiers_,
> +                        "duplicate %qE access-specifier",
> +                        token->u.value);
> +      inform (current_access_specifier_loc,
> +           "same access-specifier was previously given here");
> +      break;

...you should only call inform if warning_at_rich_loc returned true.

        Marek

Reply via email to