[Bug c/69558] [6/7/8/9 Regression] glib2 warning pragmas stopped working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558 --- Comment #25 from Bernd Edlinger --- Author: edlinger Date: Wed Jul 18 19:36:01 2018 New Revision: 262861 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262861=gcc=rev Log: libcpp: 2018-07-18 Bernd Edlinger PR 69558 * macro.c (enter_macro_context): Change the location info for builtin macros and _Pragma from location of the closing parenthesis to location of the macro expansion point. testsuite: 2018-07-18 Bernd Edlinger PR 69558 * c-c++-common/cpp/diagnostic-pragma-2.c: New test. * c-c++-common/pr69558.c: Remove xfail. * gcc.dg/cpp/builtin-macro-1.c: Adjust test expectations. * gcc.dg/pr61817-1.c: Likewise. * gcc.dg/pr61817-2.c: Likewise. * g++.dg/plugin/pragma_plugin.c: Warn at expansion_point_location. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/diagnostic-pragma-2.c Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr69558.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/plugin/pragma_plugin.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cpp/builtin-macro-1.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr61817-1.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr61817-2.c trunk/libcpp/ChangeLog trunk/libcpp/macro.c
[Bug c/69558] [6/7/8/9 Regression] glib2 warning pragmas stopped working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- Comment #24 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Reverting one minor part of those changes fixes both of the PRs though:
> --- gcc/c-family/c-pragma.c.jj2016-01-15 21:57:00.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/c-family/c-pragma.c 2016-01-29 18:34:51.743943283 +0100
> @@ -819,7 +819,7 @@ handle_pragma_diagnostic(cpp_reader *ARG
> arg = option_string + 1 + cl_options[option_index].opt_len;
>control_warning_option (option_index, (int) kind,
> arg, kind != DK_IGNORED,
> - loc, lang_mask, ,
> + input_location, lang_mask, ,
> _options, _options_set,
> global_dc);
> }
> I have no idea why, but if it doesn't break anything else, I think it would
> be better to revert it. The ChangeLog nor gcc-patches post doesn't mention
> that change anywhere.
FYI, I was there as well, and found the following.
loc points to the location of ")" in "C (foo)",
while input_location points to "C" in the C FE and to ")" in the C++ FE :-)
The reason why this does still not work in C++ is, that
the source code is sorted by location in this way:
"void foo (void) _Pragma ("GCC diagnostic push")
Pragma ("GCC diagnostic ignored")"
at the time when the warning is issued.
while your patch fixed the C FE, by using the location of the macro expansion
pint for the _Pragma,
and therefore the stack looked again way:
"_Pragma ("push") _Pragma ("ignored") void foo (void)"
This works only because the warning is printed immediately.
For late warnings the situation would look like
"_Pragma ("push") _Pragma ("ignored") _Pragma ("pop") warning_location"
[Bug c/69558] [6/7/8/9 Regression] glib2 warning pragmas stopped working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558 --- Comment #23 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #22) > Assigning this to me in the hope that I'll get to it in gcc 9 stage 1. It's gcc 9 stage 1 now.
[Bug c/69558] [6/7/8/9 Regression] glib2 warning pragmas stopped working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #22 from David Malcolm --- Assigning this to me in the hope that I'll get to it in gcc 9 stage 1.
[Bug c/69558] [6/7/8/9 Regression] glib2 warning pragmas stopped working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.0 |9.0 Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] glib2|[6/7/8/9 Regression] glib2 |warning pragmas stopped |warning pragmas stopped |working |working --- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek --- Same arguments that deferred this to gcc-8 apply now to defer it to gcc-9. David, do you think you could handle this for GCC9?
