On April 10, 2014 3:19:42 PM CEST, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 02:10:04PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 04/09/2014 04:21 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >>The names of the in-charge and not-in-charge constructor clones are
>> >>complete_ctor_identifier and base_ctor_identifier (and dtor for
>> >>destructors); you could check for those.
>> >
>> >I was more asking for how we present those To the user in
>diagnostics. I wanted to use a consistent 'quoting' style. If using
><clone> is fine then I'll just stick to that.
>>
>> I think saying <complete> and <base> would be helpful for
>> distinguishing them.
>
>My preference for 4.9 would be just print the abstract name
>and nothing else and for stage1 improve that to make it clear
>what is a clone (and with what kind of changes), what is which cdtor
>etc.
>
>Thus, I've bootstrapped/regtested this version on x86_64-linux and
>i686-linux, is this ok to everybody for now?
Works for me.
Richard.
>2014-04-10 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR ipa/60761
> * error.c (dump_decl) <case FUNCTION_DECL>: If
> DECL_LANG_SPECIFIC is NULL, but DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN is not,
> recurse on DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN instead of printing
> <built-in>.
>
>--- gcc/cp/error.c.jj 2014-03-03 08:24:14.000000000 +0100
>+++ gcc/cp/error.c 2014-04-10 12:10:39.065707779 +0200
>@@ -1145,7 +1145,12 @@ dump_decl (cxx_pretty_printer *pp, tree
>
> case FUNCTION_DECL:
> if (! DECL_LANG_SPECIFIC (t))
>- pp_string (pp, M_("<built-in>"));
>+ {
>+ if (DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (t))
>+ dump_decl (pp, DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (t), flags);
>+ else
>+ pp_string (pp, M_("<built-in>"));
>+ }
> else if (DECL_GLOBAL_CTOR_P (t) || DECL_GLOBAL_DTOR_P (t))
> dump_global_iord (pp, t);
> else
>
>
> Jakub
