From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24916 invoked by alias); 4 May 2012 11:27:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 24883 invoked by uid 22791); 4 May 2012 11:27:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 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, 04 May 2012 11:27:30 +0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/53152] In "no match for operatorXX" error message gives the wrong column info Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 11:27:00 -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: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00406.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D53152 Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|lopezibanez at gmail dot |manu at gcc dot gnu.org |com | --- Comment #4 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez 2012-05-04 11:27:15 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > How could we in principle fix this? Pass down from cp_parser_binary_expre= ssion > the location of the operator token, through build_x_binary_op -> build_ne= w_op > -> build_new_op_1 -> op_error? Boring but straightforward. Or something e= lse > entirely? I'm just guessing, really. Since we don't pass down the expression itself, I don't see any other way t= han passing down the location. In general almost all build_* function should be build_*(location_t loc,...). Thanks for doing this, it will improve the car= et a lot (and perhaps the debugging experience).