On 11/28/20 4:53 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
(resending - this didn’t seem to reach gcc-patches@)
Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 8:52 AM Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> wrote:
Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
(NOTE: likewise, ^~~ starting indent is below ‘int’ for a fixed spacing
font)
===
I’m inclined to think that the second is more useful,
but have patches for both,
which (or something else) do you prefer?
I agree that the second is preferable, thanks. But let's not
underline all of "int" there, just the caret is sufficient. I'd also
drop the mention of Obj-C++.
t.C:2:1: warning: attributes are not permitted in this position
[-Wattributes]
2 | __attribute__(())
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
t.C:3:11: note: attributes may be inserted here
3 | extern "C" int foo (void);
| ^
(the caret _is_ below the space)
(cool, I got to find out how to make a diagnostic point to the space
between two tokens)
OK?
thanks
Iain
OK, thanks.
[PATCH] C++ : Adjust warning for misplaced attributes.
This removes the reference to Objective-C++ for the warning that
attributes may not be placed before linkage specifications. It also
adds a note that they may be placed after that.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* parser.c (cp_parser_declaration): Add a not about where
attributes may be placed.
---
gcc/cp/parser.c | 7 +++++--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c
index 7a83bf4a2a7..fe1dffc391f 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
@@ -13567,9 +13567,12 @@ cp_parser_declaration (cp_parser* parser, tree
prefix_attrs)
/* We might have already been here. */
if (!c_dialect_objc ())
{
+ location_t where = get_finish (t2->location);
warning_at (token1->location, OPT_Wattributes, "attributes are"
- " only permitted in this position for Objective-C++,"
- " ignored");
+ " not permitted in this position");
+ where = linemap_position_for_loc_and_offset (line_table,
+ where, 1);
+ inform (where, "attributes may be inserted here");
attributes = NULL_TREE;
}
token1 = t1;
