http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #52 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-04
00:31:58 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Fri May 4 00:31:55 2012
New Revision: 187134
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187134
Log:
2012-05-04 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #50 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-14
10:53:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #49)
> Created attachment 27155 [details]
> fix overload carets
>
> The patch that I am currently bootstrapping. I made a small change to the
> output. It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27089|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #48 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-13
19:40:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #47)
> Jonathan's proposed output looks fine to me. The "candidates are" note had a
> source location for the sake of dejagnu, but we can deal with that by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #47 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-13
19:04:50 UTC ---
Jonathan's proposed output looks fine to me. The "candidates are" note had a
source location for the sake of dejagnu, but we can deal with that by adjusting
the prune.exp note handli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #46 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-13
12:31:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #45)
> (In reply to comment #42)
> > Yes, I like that, too. For reference, the following:
> >
> > note: candidate 'void f()' expects 0 arguments, 1 provid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #45 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-13
12:24:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> Yes, I like that, too. For reference, the following:
>
> note: candidate 'void f()' expects 0 arguments, 1 provided
> void f(); void f(int,int);
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #44 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-13
12:18:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> (In reply to comment #39)
> > just not print the "note: candidates are:". It seems superfluous info to me.
>
> Personally I like the "candidates are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #43 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-13
12:15:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> (In reply to comment #40)
> > I think what Jonathan proposed in comment #37 is also nice. If Jason
> > approves,
> > I will implement it.
>
> Yes,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #42 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-13
12:08:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
> I think what Jonathan proposed in comment #37 is also nice. If Jason approves,
> I will implement it.
Yes, I like that, too. For reference, the follow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #41 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-13
12:07:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> just not print the "note: candidates are:". It seems superfluous info to me.
Personally I like the "candidates are" line, I don't find it superfluous.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #40 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-13
11:58:04 UTC ---
I think what Jonathan proposed in comment #37 is also nice. If Jason approves,
I will implement it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #39 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-13
11:54:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> Sounds good to me. But I think GNU conventions require a location here?
Well, if that is a hard requirement, I can just suppress the caret. Or we c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #38 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-13
11:53:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> > > t.C:1:6: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 1 provided
> > > void f(); void f(int,int);
> > > ^
> > > t.C:1:17: note: void f(int, int)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #37 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-13
11:50:33 UTC ---
I think for Richard's example a nice compromise would be:
t.C: In function 'int main()':
t.C:5:6: error: no matching function for call to 'f(int)'
f(1);
^
note: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #36 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-13
11:34:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> (In reply to comment #34)
> >
> > btw, why do we print a location info for
> >
> > t.C:5:6: note: candidates are:
> >f(1);
> > ^
> >
> > at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #35 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-13
10:59:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
>
> btw, why do we print a location info for
>
> t.C:5:6: note: candidates are:
>f(1);
> ^
>
> at all?
I am proposing to print just: "not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #34 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-13
09:56:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> (In reply to comment #31)
> > The effect of this patch on overload resolution diagnostics is problematic:
> > wa2.C: In function ‘int main()’:
> > wa2.C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #33 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-13
02:25:48 UTC ---
Thanks Manu for the reminder, I have a couple of pending things in my TODO and
then I will resurrect it for the great 'caret times' ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #32 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-12
21:58:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
> The effect of this patch on overload resolution diagnostics is problematic:
> wa2.C: In function ‘int main()’:
> wa2.C:6:6: error: no matching functi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #31 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-12
21:44:23 UTC ---
The effect of this patch on overload resolution diagnostics is problematic:
-
void f();
void f(int,int);
int main()
{
f(1);
}
-
wa2.C: In function ‘int main()’:
wa2.C:6:6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #30 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-11
09:52:26 UTC ---
So we have caret diagnostics in GCC 4.8! :-) :-) :-)
In any case, I am leaving this open. There are some improvements that I still
would like to make before 4.8.0, and surely t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #29 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-11
09:26:55 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Wed Apr 11 09:26:48 2012
New Revision: 186305
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186305
Log:
2012-04-11 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR 249
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #28 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-04-09 16:19:15 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> Of course, it needs some fine-tuning to avoid repetitions, but this is
> a problem with the locations given by the macro expansion u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #27 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-04-09 16:04:46 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> Dodji, are you planning to propose to enable -ftrack-macro-expansion
> by default in GCC 4.8?
Wow, what a timing!
I am working on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #25 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-05
22:09:30 UTC ---
> Another problem with c99-vla-jump-3.c and similar testcases is that it seems
> as
> if DejaGNU limits the output (or has a limited size buffer for text) and
> decides to stop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #24 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-05
22:05:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #22)
> > * DejaGNU trims leading whitespace before passing the text to prune.
>
> So it does. Bizarre.
>
> set co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #23 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-05
17:00:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> * DejaGNU trims leading whitespace before passing the text to prune.
So it does. Bizarre.
set comp_output [string trimleft $comp_output]
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #22 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-05
12:13:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Created attachment 27093 [details]
> Patch to prune caret diagnostics from gcc output
>
> Actually, this seems like a better approach: rather than d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27092|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-04
18:52:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Created attachment 27092 [details]
> Patch to add -fno-diagnostics-show-caret for testing
>
> This seems like what you want for the last bit.
Great
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-04
18:47:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 27092
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27092
Patch to add -fno-diagnostics-show-caret for testing
This seems like what you want for the last bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-04
15:28:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 27089
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27089
caret diagnostics patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||borut.razem at gmail dot
--- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-15 18:51 ---
If you have half-baked patches, mention them in a comment or attach them to
this bug.
If you have complete patches, submit them to gcc-patches and link to them from
here.
If you have ideas about how this could be im
--- Comment #13 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-15 17:33 ---
Patch for change to coding conventions:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg00687.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 21:25 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-08/msg00459.html
>
> That's a vasprintf patch, I don't see the connection.
>
Ops, bad first link. This is the correct:
--- Comment #11 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 18:31 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-08/msg00459.html
That's a vasprintf patch, I don't see the connection.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 17:06 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Beyond caret diagnostics there is also range info for the diagnostic location.
See the patch and thread at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-08/msg00459.html
and the requested patch:
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 16:56 ---
Beyond caret diagnostics there is also range info for the diagnostic location.
See:
http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #8 from dave at treblig dot org 2009-07-03 11:03 ---
Note there are two slightly different things being asked for here:
1) Showing the horizontal position in the line
2) show the preprocessed line rather than the raw line (which was my 40228
that just got marked as a dupe
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-03 00:38
---
I see, thanks Manuel for the feedback, I'll give it some thought.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-03 00:25 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Manuel, pardon the naive question: are we getting closer to fixing this? I'm
> asking because I saw patches about column numbers and wondered if that really
> means that very soon we'll be abl
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-02 23:55
---
Manuel, pardon the naive question: are we getting closer to fixing this? I'm
asking because I saw patches about column numbers and wondered if that really
means that very soon we'll be able to just print a care
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-02 23:49 ---
*** Bug 40228 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-22 09:50 ---
Better summary to find duplicates.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
51 matches
Mail list logo
