Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian suggested that we delete this information after the FE is > finished. This makes sense, I think, from a memory-saving > perspective. But, that means we will get different kinds of error > output depending on when a diagnostic is emitted, which I think is > pretty unfriendly -- it exposes implementation details of gcc to the > user.
I think that is mostly OK in practice because most diagnostics are issued by the front end. But I admit that some come from the middle-end, so there would be an inconsistency. Another approach would be to only use the carets for parse errors, which is where they are the most helpful. For a middle-end error like "assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying multiplication" a caret pointer might be more misleading than otherwise, as one thing we know for sure is that it would not point at a multiplication operator. What do other compilers do? Reopening the file doesn't work for standard input, which I admit is an unusual case. Ian
