>>>>> "Aldy" == Aldy Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Aldy> The error here is currently: Aldy> #'goto_expr' not supported by pp_c_expression#'bug.c: In function 'foo': Aldy> bug.c:4: error: called object is not a function Aldy> But, is this slew of work even worth it? I for one think that the Aldy> aforementioned PRs should at least be marked down considerably. 3 of Aldy> them are P2s-- and I think they should be some Pn+5, and/or mark them as Aldy> an enhancement request. It would be nice not to emit a completely bogus message like that, even if we cannot immediately emit an excellent message. Aldy> Are there any thoughts on this (the PRs, the caret diagnostics, plan of Aldy> attack, etc?). Caret diagnostics do seem like the way to go. If you're interested in working on this, I think one way to do it would be to start with a parser and make sure it always picks the proper token from which to extract a location. This is a reasonable amount of work, and unfortunately much of it would have to be complete before we could enable caret- or column-output. (I have a few random unsubmitted patches toward this direction, I can forward them if you are interested.) I suspect that there's some work fixing optimization passes. I have not looked but I would not be surprised if some of them pick locations poorly when rearranging things. My full wish here, getting rid of input_location, requires changes all over. E.g., the location should be an argument to build_decl; that alone has hundreds of calls. As far as I know nobody is actively working on any of this, though Mañuel and I talk about it sporadically. Tom
