https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80221
Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Mike Stump from comment #6)
> The . and .-1, .+1, .-2 forms are fine. The .-62 forms are as problematic
> as the original I suspect. I think we should exclude any number greater
> than some small int, say, 9. So, .-9 .. .+9 in the new form only. If
> outside that range, I think I'd rather punt. The idea is that the absolute
> number at least has a line number that in an editor you can go directly to,
> and it corresponds with the number in the error messages directly, aiding
> understanding which one is referred to without having to ungoop the relative
> number first.
I would guess that a lange number of these are actually cases where all the
"dg-*" directives have been assembled at the end of the file? In such cases,
it would perhaps make sense to move them onto or next to the lines they apply
to -- unless that doesn't make sense for other reasons (when they are grouped
together for a reason).
