On 4 March 2016 at 19:36, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Those caret locations look wrong to me - they don't seem to be
> underlining the pertinent source. Is that what the patched compiler is
> printing, or did things get messed up somewhere via email?
Probably Gmail sucks at sending plain text. It sucks also for reading
plain text.
> 68425.c:9:37: warning: excess elements in array initializer (6
> elements,
> expected 3)
> const int array6[3] = {1, 2, 3, 6, 89, 193};
>
> ~ ^~~~~~~~~~
This is so f*****g cool you almost brought me to tears! David, where
have you been hiding all these years and what are you going to fix
next in GCC?
> Or do that in the followup note, for something like:
>
> 68425.c:9:37: warning: excess elements in array initializer (6
> elements, expected 3)
> const int array6[3] = {1, 2, 3, 6, 89, 193};
> ^~~~~~~~~~
> 68425.c:9:12: note: (near initialization for ‘array6’)
> const int array6[3] = {1, 2, 3, 6, 89, 193;
> ^
A follow-up note seems just clutter at this point. It was just there
because we could not give a precise location (this is why we say the
awkward "near initialization..."). Your previous proposal is just
perfect. How would it work if the '~' and the '^' are on separate
lines?
> but maybe that's over-ambitious for now.
Now that we can, we should be :-)
Cheers,
Manuel.
