From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23209 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2010 14:23:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 22894 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2010 14:23:17 -0000 Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100609142317.22893.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug preprocessor/7263] __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "dodji at redhat dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg01041.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #27 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 14:23 ------- Subject: Re: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants "manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" writes: > I find this output a bit confusing. I find clang's output clearer > http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html. I guess you are talking about the "automatic macro expansion" section of that link? > > In fact, clang's output actually follows more closely what GCC already does > with templates/inline functions. Well, this is obviously a first step in that direction. I'd be more interested in knowing what I can do at *this* step :-) But yes, once I can bootstrap all the FEs with the macro location tracking infrastructure in place with no regression, I guess I'll focus more on the user visible output. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7263