From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 46B7E3858CDA; Sun,  9 Apr 2023 09:04:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 46B7E3858CDA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1681031083;
	bh=thdslSfN5ApfHLB1xg4A4zuVrwR0RydwtWvoVoXHMrM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=UzhxOf+jcQcAOAfLEutccSLnwGhMPX+6UmQBWhRApQEiG8YaePuLQ6z59RVZOuHRp
	 jBZ+vHL7ZDs/ydyfD7u/OScHx8jOhOHvVDLmmsLT9aasPg3Fschzq7dq8JLNeIAVNJ
	 AC/l9igd8C4dR4boxi7MSqBkfca3LjfPZW9srzzM=
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/109356] Enhancement idea to provide clearer missing brace
 line number
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2023 09:04:42 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: WONTFIX
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109356-4-fSixeZPCZB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109356-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109356-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109356

--- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #6)
> Tried a few other compilers on godbolt.=20
>=20
> ICC gets the warning on line 6
> https://godbolt.org/z/fYb9c8f61
>=20
> nvc++ gives the warning on line 6=20
> https://godbolt.org/z/xvh67odzY
>=20
> MSVC and Clang don't.

This is just blind luck.  All of these compilers attempt to "fix" the syntax
error by adding "}" at line 8 (not line 6!) and produce further warnings.  =
It's
just ICC and nvc++ report "excess elements in initializer" at the beginning=
 of
the initializer, while the other compilers report it at the end.

Strictly speaking all of them are false warnings as there is no excess elem=
ents
in the initializer (according to the programmer's mind).  But the only thing
the parser can do is guessing the programmer wanted a "}" at line 8.=