[Bug c++/87386] [8/9 Regression] Error message for static_assert show wrong range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.3 |9.0 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Not going to backport for 8.x.
[Bug c++/87386] [8/9 Regression] Error message for static_assert show wrong range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed.
[Bug c++/87386] [8/9 Regression] Error message for static_assert show wrong range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 22 09:26:29 2018 New Revision: 266369 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266369=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/87386 * parser.c (cp_parser_operator): Use str.get_value () instead of just str in USERDEF_LITERAL_VALUE and USERDEF_LITERAL_SUFFIX_ID arguments. Modified: trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c
[Bug c++/87386] [8/9 Regression] Error message for static_assert show wrong range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Nov 21 22:41:07 2018 New Revision: 266359 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266359=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/87386 * parser.c (cp_parser_primary_expression): Use id_expression.get_location () instead of id_expr_token->location. Adjust the range from id_expr_token->location to id_expressio.get_finish (). (cp_parser_operator_function_id): Pass location of the operator token down to cp_parser_operator. (cp_parser_operator): Add start_loc argument, always construct a location with caret at start_loc and range from start_loc to the finish of the last token. gcc/testsuite/ * g++.dg/diagnostic/pr87386.C: New test. * g++.dg/parse/error17.C: Adjust expected diagnostics. libstdc++-v3/ * testsuite/20_util/scoped_allocator/69293_neg.cc: Adjust expected line. * testsuite/20_util/uses_allocator/cons_neg.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/20_util/uses_allocator/69293_neg.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/experimental/propagate_const/requirements2.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/experimental/propagate_const/requirements3.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/experimental/propagate_const/requirements4.cc: Likewise. * testsuite/experimental/propagate_const/requirements5.cc: Likewise. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/diagnostic/pr87386.C Modified: trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/error17.C trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/scoped_allocator/69293_neg.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/uses_allocator/69293_neg.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/uses_allocator/cons_neg.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/experimental/propagate_const/requirements2.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/experimental/propagate_const/requirements3.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/experimental/propagate_const/requirements4.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/experimental/propagate_const/requirements5.cc
[Bug c++/87386] [8/9 Regression] Error message for static_assert show wrong range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 45046 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45046=edit gcc9-pr87386.patch More complete patch. Though, in some cases it might be better to just use range of just the last identifier of an id-expression, and the suggestions look weird too. foo::bar ~^~~ baz instead of baz David?
[Bug c++/87386] [8/9 Regression] Error message for static_assert show wrong range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With:
--- gcc/cp/parser.c.jj 2018-11-20 08:41:28.686923718 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/parser.c 2018-11-20 17:06:27.942626189 +0100
@@ -5602,7 +5602,7 @@ cp_parser_primary_expression (cp_parser
/*is_namespace=*/false,
/*check_dependency=*/true,
_decls,
- id_expr_token->location);
+ id_expression.get_location ());
/* If the lookup was ambiguous, an error will already have
been issued. */
if (ambiguous_decls)
@@ -5673,7 +5673,7 @@ cp_parser_primary_expression (cp_parser
if (parser->local_variables_forbidden_p
&& local_variable_p (decl))
{
- error_at (id_expr_token->location,
+ error_at (id_expression.get_location (),
"local variable %qD may not appear in this context",
decl.get_value ());
return error_mark_node;
@@ -5692,7 +5692,7 @@ cp_parser_primary_expression (cp_parser
id_expression.get_location ()));
if (error_msg)
cp_parser_error (parser, error_msg);
- decl.set_location (id_expr_token->location);
+ decl.set_location (id_expression.get_location ());
return decl;
}
@@ -5758,6 +5758,7 @@ cp_parser_id_expression (cp_parser *pars
{
bool global_scope_p;
bool nested_name_specifier_p;
+ location_t start_loc = cp_lexer_peek_token (parser->lexer)->location;
/* Assume the `template' keyword was not used. */
if (template_p)
@@ -5809,6 +5810,9 @@ cp_parser_id_expression (cp_parser *pars
parser->object_scope = saved_object_scope;
parser->qualifying_scope = saved_qualifying_scope;
+ location_t loc = make_location (unqualified_id.get_start (), start_loc,
+ unqualified_id.get_finish ());
+ unqualified_id.set_location (loc);
return unqualified_id;
}
/* Otherwise, if we are in global scope, then we are looking at one
the output is:
pr87386.C:4:31: error: static assertion failed: foo
4 | static_assert(foo::test::value, "foo");
| ^
pr87386.C:5:37: error: static assertion failed: bar
5 | static_assert(foo::test::value && true, "bar");
| ~~^~~
Is that what we want? I.e. put the care at the start of the identifier in the
id-expression and use range of the whole id-expression?
We'd need to adjust probably
g++.dg/cpp0x/auto52.C
g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51420.C
g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C
g++.dg/lookup/suggestions2.C
g++.dg/parse/error17.C
g++.dg/spellcheck-pr77829.C
g++.dg/spellcheck-pr78656.C
g++.dg/spellcheck-pr79298.C
g++.dg/spellcheck-single-vs-multiple.C
testcases, so before I do that I'd like to get agreement if this is the right
thing to do. David?
[Bug c++/87386] [8/9 Regression] Error message for static_assert show wrong range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.3
[Bug c++/87386] [8/9 Regression] Error message for static_assert show wrong range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It would be better to highlight the whole condition:
87386.cc:4:15: error: static assertion failed: eee
4 | static_assert(foo::test::value, "eee");
| ^
Which is what already happens for a more complex expression:
namespace foo {
template struct test { static constexpr bool value = false; };
}
static_assert(foo::test::value && true, "");
87386.cc:4:37: error: static assertion failed
4 | static_assert(foo::test::value && true, "");
| ~~^~~
[Bug c++/87386] [8/9 Regression] Error message for static_assert show wrong range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Started with r255255 C++: improve location of static_assert errors gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * parser.c (cp_parser_unary_expression): Generate a location for "noexcept". (cp_parser_trait_expr): Generate and return a location_t, converting the return type from tree to cp_expr. (cp_parser_static_assert): Pass location of the condition to finish_static_assert, rather than that of the "static_assert" token, where available.
[Bug c++/87386] [8/9 Regression] Error message for static_assert show wrong range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2018-09-21
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Proper testcase that actually compiles:
#include
static_assert(std::is_same::value,"eee");
87386.cc:2:15: error: static assertion failed: eee
2 | static_assert(std::is_same::value,"eee");
|
Reduced testcase without header dependencies:
namespace foo {
template struct test { static constexpr bool value = false; };
}
static_assert(foo::test::value, "eee");
87386.cc:4:15: error: static assertion failed: eee
4 | static_assert(foo::test::value, "eee");
| ^~~
This is a regression, as GCC 7 highlighted the keyword 'static_assert' instead,
which makes more sense than just the first token of the condition:
87386.cc:4:1: error: static assertion failed: eee
static_assert(foo::test::value, "eee");
^
[Bug c++/87386] [8/9 Regression] Error message for static_assert show wrong range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87386 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Known to work||7.3.0 Summary|Error message for |[8/9 Regression] Error |static_assert show wrong|message for static_assert |range |show wrong range --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to trashyankes from comment #1) > btw how reduce "Importance" of this bug? You don't. That field doesn't matter.
