On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > It seems to me that the only approach here would be to provide caret > diagnostics, because reconstructing the original sources from GENERIC > seems like a loosing proposition.
In some cases the only useful place to find the expression is in the preprocessed sources, not the original sources, so you want to be able to print an expression extracted from those not just one extracted from pointers into the original sources. But in either case extracting an expressions using some form of beginning and ending locations would give better results than reconstructing a representation of the expression from trees. (This would involve keeping two locations for an expression rather than one, but an opaque location_t cookie ought to be able to represent locations in both original and preprocessed source so you shouldn't need four locations.) > But, is this slew of work even worth it? I for one think that the > aforementioned PRs should at least be marked down considerably. 3 of > them are P2s-- and I think they should be some Pn+5, and/or mark them as > an enhancement request. I set 35441 to P4, and Volker complained that it should have been P2 (though he didn't take me up on my invitation to reset it to P3 for another RM to look at it). I think it would certainly be reasonable to print <complex expression> for anything unsupported instead of broken diagnostics, and to reclassify all such bugs as wishlist requests for certain complex expressions to be better supported in diagnostics. -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
