On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 12:38:46PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> On 09/09/2013 11:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >That said, grepping for %q+D reveals quite some uses and it looks like >> >all of them expect the location being used to be that of the decl passed >> >to the diagnostic call, not some random other location. >> If the decl is *not* a PARM_DECL, I expect %q+D to be often >> accurate. In fact, even when *is* a PARM_DECL what we have now is >> pretty decent, because normally the location of the corresponding >> FUNCTION_DECL isn't that far. The point is whether we want to be >> *more* accurate and point to the specific unused parameter, for C >> and C++, as clang and icc do. > > I guess the primary question is why location_of special cases the PARM_DECL > and in which case it is useful to do so, and whether the number of cases (if > any) when it is useful to do so is bigger than the number of place when it > is undesirable.
Most likely historical reason, the exact sequence of which is lost to history. -- Gaby
