[Bug c++/13657] Error message incorrectly describes return type as argument type

[Bug c++/13657] Error message incorrectly describes return type as argument type

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13657

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
                   |                            |com

--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-10-19 18:10:53 UTC ---
For this issue, would it make sense to keep on propagating the impl_conv_rhs
argument passed by check_return_expr to convert_for_initialization - that is,
ICR_RETURN - beyond convert_for_assignment, thus to can_convert_arg_bad ->
implicit_conversion -> standard_conversion -> instantiate_type ?

Or we want to aim for something more ad hoc in this case?

[Bug c++/13657] Error message incorrectly describes return type as argument type

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13657

--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-19 20:52:01 UTC ---
I think just making the error message more general makes sense here, something
along the lines of "cannot convert..."

[Bug c++/13657] Error message incorrectly describes return type as argument type

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13657

--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-10-19 22:06:56 UTC ---
Ok, thanks, I'm doing that.

[Bug c++/13657] Error message incorrectly describes return type as argument type

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13657

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.7.0

--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-10-19 22:47:28 UTC ---
Fixed for 4.7.0.

[Bug c++/13657] Error message incorrectly describes return type as argument type

[paolo at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13657

--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org <paolo at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-19 22:46:01 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 19 22:45:58 2011
New Revision: 180228

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180228
Log:
/cp
2011-10-19  Paolo Carlini  <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>

    PR c++/13657
    * class.c (instantiate_type): Fix error message.

/testsuite
2011-10-19  Paolo Carlini  <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>

    PR c++/13657
    * g++.dg/parse/error42.C: New.
    * g++.old-deja/g++.other/ptrmem7.C: Tweak dg-errors.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/error42.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/class.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.other/ptrmem7.C

[Bug c++/13657] Error message incorrectly describes return type as argument type

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1017 bytes --]



------- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-01-26 23:47 -------
(In reply to comment #0)

> The error message is basically correct, but there is no `argument' here.  The
> error message should refer to the return type instead.  It might suffice to
> simply replace the word `argument' with the word `return'.

It is not that easy. The function that emits the error seems to be used for
several things. However, at the point that the error is issued, I don't see any
way to detect what we are actually doing. 

What do you think about this message? Will it work for any situation?

error: ‘C::bar’ of type ‘int (C::)()’ does not match expected type ‘int (*)()’

The patch would be something like:

- error ("argument of type %qT does not match %qT", TREE_TYPE (rhs), lhstype);
+ error ("%qE of type %qT does not match expected type %qT", rhs,
TREE_TYPE(rhs), lhstype)

Andrew? Gabriel? Ian?

I can implement it and test it if you agree.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13657

[Bug c++/13657] Error message incorrectly describes return type as argument type

[gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2005-09-17 03:54:45         |2005-11-26 08:59:16
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13657

[Bug c++/13657] Error message incorrectly describes return type as argument type

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-01-12 17:43 -------
3.3.x gives:
pr13657.cc: In member function `int (* C::f())()':
pr13657.cc:2: error: no matches converting function `bar' to type `int (*)()'
pr13657.cc:1: error: candidates are: int C::bar()
I wound not call this a regression but I can confirm that the error message that 3.4 gives is a little 
confusing.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
           Keywords|                            |diagnostic
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2004-01-12 17:44:00
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13657