> I think, in the long-term, your proposed approach is less useful than
> fixing early folding and adding locations (via a wrapper or an
> on-the-side index) to the tree nodes that don't have one. But, since
> nobody is working on the latter, the "long term" may be longer than
> the time until som
On 18 September 2012 12:58, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> This is a relatively large patch which tackles the difficult issue of
> generating more sloc information in front-ends (in particular C and C++
> front-ends), so that "static analyzers" based on GCC can get more useful
> and detailed information.
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> OK, so you mean, instead of knowing the number of locations from the
> tree kind (e.g. 1 extra sloc for unary exprs, 2 for binary exprs, ...),
> we would encode this as part of the extra loc info? Note that the number of
No, I mean that rather than the
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 09:18:39AM +0200, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> > I also think this is to be preferred. I think of location_t as being, for
> > most of the compiler, an opaque handle to location information. Just as
> > it can now represent information about diffe
Thanks for your feedback.
> I also think this is to be preferred. I think of location_t as being, for
> most of the compiler, an opaque handle to location information. Just as
> it can now represent information about different concepts of location in
> the presence of macro expansion, so it's en
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> >
> > Since this issue is more general, I have split my changes and introduced a
> > new
> > tentative switch called -fextra-slocs, which is the subject of this email.
>
> Sorry for picking o
> >> and at that point you have lost your extra location
> >> information.
> >
> > Actually no, see the c-family/c-common.c patch, copied here, which
> > ensures that folding does preserve such information:
>
> Thanks. I think I would like some clarity on when the extra location
> information is
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>
>> and at that point you have lost your extra location
>> information.
>
> Actually no, see the c-family/c-common.c patch, copied here, which
> ensures that folding does preserve such information:
Thanks. I think I would like some clarity
> Sorry for picking on simple stuff, but the switch name seems
No problem, and thanks for your feedback.
> meaningless, and there isn't any documentation.
Ah. I'm open for suggestion on a better name, or I can come up with a
new one.
I'll indeed add documentation as soon as there's some kind of
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>
> Since this issue is more general, I have split my changes and introduced a new
> tentative switch called -fextra-slocs, which is the subject of this email.
Sorry for picking on simple stuff, but the switch name seems
meaningless, and ther
10 matches
Mail list logo
