On 1/11/19 4:56 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 11/01/19 22:22, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/11/19 4:13 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 11/01/19 19:58, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/10/19 9:24 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi again,
this one is also matter of consistency with, say, the precise
location that we use for the error message at the beginning of
check_methods. Indeed, the sequence of error messages of
g++.dg/inherit/pure1.C reflect that. Tested x86_64-linux.
Thanks, Paolo.
PS: minor issues anyway, but I'm almost done with these low hanging
fruits which I'm proposing to fix for 9 too....
Hmm, wouldn't it be preferable to use the location of the
initializer when the initializer is the problem?
I see what you mean and indeed yesterday I gave that some thought. In
practice, we have the usual issue that currently constants don't have
a location
They do now in a lot more cases, with location wrappers. If not, we
could fall back on the decl location with EXPR_LOC_OR_LOC.
Yes. And that's what we are in fact already doing in all the other uses
of cp_expr_loc_or_loc in decl.c. Seems a good solution to me too. I'm
finishing testing the below.
OK.
Jason
