OK.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 03/07/2018 18:36, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>>
>>> if ((type_quals & TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE)
>>> - && (loc == UNKNOWN_LOCATION || locations[ds_volatile] < loc))
>>> + && (loc == UNKNOWN_LOCATION
>>> + || linema
Hi,
On 03/07/2018 18:36, Jason Merrill wrote:
if ((type_quals & TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE)
- && (loc == UNKNOWN_LOCATION || locations[ds_volatile] < loc))
+ && (loc == UNKNOWN_LOCATION
+ || linemap_location_before_p (line_table,
+location
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 28/06/2018 03:22, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> If I'm following you right, the idea is that gcc should complain
>>> because two different things in the user's source code contradict
>>> each
>>> other.
>>>
>>> In such
Hi,
On 28/06/2018 03:22, David Malcolm wrote:
[snip]
If I'm following you right, the idea is that gcc should complain
because two different things in the user's source code contradict
each
other.
In such circumstances, I think we ought to try to print *both*
locations, so that we're showing, r
On Wed, 2018-06-27 at 21:13 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 02:28 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 28/06/2018 01:31, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >
> > > > +/* Returns the smallest location. */
> > >
> > > This should probably say "...that is not UNKNOWN_LOCATION."
On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 02:28 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 28/06/2018 01:31, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > +/* Returns the smallest location. */
> >
> > This should probably say "...that is not UNKNOWN_LOCATION."
>
> I agree.
> > Actually, the places you use min_location would seem
Hi,
On 28/06/2018 01:31, Jason Merrill wrote:
+/* Returns the smallest location. */
This should probably say "...that is not UNKNOWN_LOCATION."
I agree.
Actually, the places you use min_location would seem to work fine with
max_location as well. What are your criteria for choosing one or
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:11 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 27/06/2018 01:52, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 01:44 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this includes straightforward tweaks to check_concept_fn and quite a
>>> bit
>>> of additional work on g
Hi David,
On 27/06/2018 01:52, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 01:44 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
this includes straightforward tweaks to check_concept_fn and quite a
bit
of additional work on grokdeclarator: most of it is also rather
straightforward. In a few places there is the
On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 01:44 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this includes straightforward tweaks to check_concept_fn and quite a
> bit
> of additional work on grokdeclarator: most of it is also rather
> straightforward. In a few places there is the subtlety that we want
> to
> handle toge
Hi,
this includes straightforward tweaks to check_concept_fn and quite a bit
of additional work on grokdeclarator: most of it is also rather
straightforward. In a few places there is the subtlety that we want to
handle together ds_storage_class and ds_thread, whichever location is
the smalles
11 matches
Mail list logo
