On 9 May 2012 14:59, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 05/09/2012 08:21 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> >> Is unapplied because I was really nervous due to the wrong location >> (thus caret) of the error call, at the end of the whole condition. Now, >> I'm wondering, shall we consistently use error_at (location_of (expr), >> ... for the error messages produced by the *convert* functions? > > > Sure. Note that as an alternative to error_at (location_of (expr) you can > just use %q+E; the + means "use the location of this argument".
This far less clear than error_at(location, "whatever"). And it requires the diagnostics machinery to know about input_location. I removed %H precisely for those reasons. Please, let's stop using "+" in diagnostics and always use explicit locations. Cheers, Manuel.
