Hi, I'm pinging <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg01124.html>.
I think, there are two subtopics to it that can be discussed separately. I would like to focus on the patch itself here. I am going to also start a subthread dedicated to dealing with representative returns. I still have the same questions I had when I was sending the patch. I am going to reiterate them, but in a more structured/focused fashion. > When percent_K_format is called, TEXT might already hold precise > location information in case its (indirect) caller is > warning_at/error_at. So it seems to me, this function lacks > distinguishing the two cases: being called from plain warning/error > functions vs. their *_at counterparts (the location shouldn't be > updated in the latter case). David, do you agree? Should a discriminator of some sort be introduced? > Sometimes inlining context is still lost (with the current patch), as > can be seen e.g. with a version of the test with 's/unsigned yo/int yo/' > substitution applied. (The chain of block = BLOCK_SUPERCONTEXT (block) > is broken - it ends with 0 rather than a FUNCTION_DECL.) Is this known > and expected (e.g. because pass_late_warn_uninitialized runs very late), > or something to be investigated and fixed? I don't know whom to address this question to. I guess I'll just go ahead and investigate if no expert shows up. > The patch was bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > Shall it be applied? Addressing the two points above would make the solution more complete. However, I think, the patch is still beneficial as-is, and it is not hacky. Re-tested, no regressions. -- Vlad
