[Bug ada/35886] Bad location of error message

[sam at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-10-03 12:55 ---
This has been fixed alreayd in SVN.


-- 

sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35886

[Bug ada/35886] Bad location of error message

[charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-05-12 22:34 ---
Well, I must be blind, but I do not see a bad location here: GNAT complains
at line 3 that the full declaration defined at line 4 must be tagged,
showing indeed the line where type T is declared as tagged.

Looks correct to me.

Arno


-- 

charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35886

[Bug ada/35886] Bad location of error message

[sam at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-05-12 22:43 ---
I expect the error message to point at the full declaration itself, not the
partial view, as the partial view had been analyzed correctly and had no error
so far. When it says full declaration of type T declared at XXX, I expect
XXX to designate the partial view, not the other way around.

To take a similar situation, consider:

package T is
   X : constant Integer;
private
   X : constant Float := 3.0;
end T;

GNAT gives the error:

 4.X : constant Float := 3.0;
   |
 type does not match declaration at line 2

and not:

 2.X : constant Integer;
   |
 type doesn't match declaration at line 4

I think this is an anomaly, as this doesn't match the behaviour of GNAT in
other similar cases (a completion of a declaration not fullfilling the initial
promise).


-- 

sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
 Resolution|INVALID |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35886

[Bug ada/35886] Bad location of error message

[charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-05-12 22:54 ---
OK, classifying as an enhancement request, since there's no bug here, the error
message is correct.


-- 

charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Severity|minor   |enhancement


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35886

[Bug ada/35886] Bad location of error message

[sam at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-05-12 23:01 ---
Given that this happens when currently analyzing Id (and not Prev), posting
the error message on Prev instead of Id may be an historical typo
(inversion between both parameters in the call to Error_Msg_NE).

For example, in the message

   Error_Msg_NE (
 full declaration of } must be a record extension,
 Prev, Id);

it seems more logical to print

  full declaration of type name defined at ... must be a record extension

and have the error point to the full view rather than the opposite. And if you
look at the way the error message is expanded, you clearly see that type
name defined at ... comes together as one sole entity, namely }, so the
grouping is full declaration of (type name defined at ...) must be a record
extension rather than (full declaration of type name) defined at ... must
be a record extension. And the error location (where the error is posted)
already gives a primary location which I expect to be the problematic one.

So I'm not sure this should be classified as an enhancement request only, as
the grouping due to the expansion of } shows an anomaly. Anyway, a trivial
patch has been proposed already, waiting for your approval.


-- 

sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Severity|enhancement |minor


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35886

[Bug ada/35886] Bad location of error message

[sam at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

sam at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-04-09 13:27:49
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35886