From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 5087E3858431; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:22:38 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5087E3858431 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1706516558; bh=t14rcHL6cxZ8vq0hqm1y0+EcN8v2Q7w+X528B5uXRVk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=d3w7vHfue8SqAKKCuaoBCzXKsfeKWImbOkNF1so9H03znY83XlCHubYKeNjNa5VeM zli4s/YFq+8zn1e61nAGvn+/LbtY6u8SyhZrh7apLRZE0zmbpJAuNAoClb6Kfz6pqm enuCM8lJ98fftZJvYGLsvpEBYGqQd2bILRxrOPR4= From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/113631] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr7356.c, fix still fails with #pragma Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:22:32 +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: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, testsuite-fail X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 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: cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status everconfirmed version Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113631 Richard Biener changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed| |2024-01-29 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 Version|unknown |14.0 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- :1:2: error: expected ';' before 'typedef' 1 | a a.h:1:9: error: expected '=3D', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before '#pragma' 1 | #pragma message "foo" | ^~~~~~~ as it's a different message it's likely using a different location to highlight the issue. In general it's difficult to tell whether pointing to the first token sequence in the #included file or the last token before the #include directive is better here. Of course the pragma location should underline either #pragma or the whole #pragma, not just 'message'. Btw, same issue without the #include: a #pragma message "foo" vs. a typedef int b; I'm not sure it makes sense to special case the situation we've switched files?=