On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 10:58 +0100, Erick Ochoa wrote: > + // Anonymous fields? (Which the record can be!). > + warning (OPT_Wdfa, "RECORD_TYPE %qE has dead field %qE in LTO.\n", > + record, field);
Others have pointed out that -Wdfa isn't a good name for the warning, I like their suggestions. A few other nitpicks on this: - "RECORD_TYPE" is an implementation detail of GCC. Diagnostics should be worded in terms of the user’s source code, and the source language, rather than GCC’s own implementation details. - "dead field" feels like jargon to me. How about: field 'foo' in 'struct bar' is never used [-Wunused-field] or somesuch? - The "in LTO" in the message seems like a redundant implementation detail to me. - "warning" will implicitly use the global "input_location" as the location of the diagnostic. Better would be to use "warning_at" with the location of the field's declaration. I think you can get this via DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION () on the FIELD_DECL. See also: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Guidelines-for-Diagnostics.html Hope this is constructive Dave
