On Apr 18, 2010, at 2:50 AM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> >> >> Thanks for doing this Eric. One stylistic thing: there is no need to say >> which argument number is problematic, just point to the argument and >> underline the problematic expression with a source range. Removing the >> argument # makes it more concise. >> >> IOW, please change "argument 0 to '__builtin_return_address' must be a >> constant integer" to "argument to '__builtin_return_address' must be a >> constant integer" or better yet, "argument must be a constant integer" if >> its obvious what the callee is. > > Sure, wasn't sure how much parsing of the decls we were supporting vs the > underlining :) > > That said the main reasons I threw the function name in there were: > > a) most of the messages already had them, > b) the most typical case runs like this: > > "some builtin isn't being called with the correct args : > _mm_my_thingy(0, 2) > > instantiated from here: > #define _mm_my_thingy(a, b) __builtin_my_thingy((a),(b))" > > or close enough :) > > So, whatcha think? Leave it in or take it out? :)
Leaving the function name in makes sense, please remove the arg # though, thanks! -Chris _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
