From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-388732-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 28416 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2012 12:32:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 28406 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2012 12:32:26 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:32:12 +0000
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/24985] caret diagnostics
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:32:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-24985-4-cwk7jQ1KqT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-24985-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-24985-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg01014.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D24985

--- Comment #46 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez <manu at gcc dot gn=
u.org> 2012-04-13 12:31:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #45)
> (In reply to comment #42)
> > Yes, I like that, too.  For reference, the following:
> >=20
> > note: candidate 'void f()' expects 0 arguments, 1 provided
> >  void f();  void f(int,int);
> >       ^
> > note:  candidate 'void f(int, int)' expects 2 arguments, 1 provided
> >  void f();  void f(int,int);
> >                  ^
>=20
> I like this for this example, but does it work as well if the function na=
me is
> very long, and the "expects 2 arguments, 1 provided" is no longer in a
> predictable position, but pushed off to the right of a very long line?

I see your point, I am convinced.

> (we do already have this problem when printing ridiculous paths for stdlib
> headers with superfluous lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/../../../=
..
> rubbish in them, is there an existing bug for that?)

Please open one with a reproducible testcase and I will take a look. This is
very annoying to me as well, and there should be a way to make these paths
shorter.