On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 12:49 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > Hmm, I think instead of special-casing UNKNOWN_LOCATION
> > what gimple_set_location should probably do is either not copy
> > warnings at all or union them. Btw, gimple_set_location also
> > removes a previously set BLOCK (but gimple_se
> Hmm, I think instead of special-casing UNKNOWN_LOCATION
> what gimple_set_location should probably do is either not copy
> warnings at all or union them. Btw, gimple_set_location also
> removes a previously set BLOCK (but gimple_set_block preserves
> the location locus and diagnostic override).
On 6/13/22 05:15, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 12:58 PM Eric Botcazou via Gcc-patches
wrote:
Hi,
gimple_set_location is mostly invoked on newly built GIMPLE statements, so
their location is UNKNOWN_LOCATION and setting it will clobber the warning
data of the passed location,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 12:58 PM Eric Botcazou via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> gimple_set_location is mostly invoked on newly built GIMPLE statements, so
> their location is UNKNOWN_LOCATION and setting it will clobber the warning
> data of the passed location, if any.
Hmm, I think instead of
On 6/10/2022 4:57 AM, Eric Botcazou via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi,
gimple_set_location is mostly invoked on newly built GIMPLE statements, so
their location is UNKNOWN_LOCATION and setting it will clobber the warning
data of the passed location, if any.
Tested on x86-64/Linux, OK for mainline an
Hi,
gimple_set_location is mostly invoked on newly built GIMPLE statements, so
their location is UNKNOWN_LOCATION and setting it will clobber the warning
data of the passed location, if any.
Tested on x86-64/Linux, OK for mainline and 12 branch?
2022-06-10 Eric Botcazou
* gimple.h
