From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-407130-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18271 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2012 17:18:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 16786 invoked by uid 55); 19 Nov 2012 17:18:02 -0000
From: "dodji at seketeli dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/55252] Caret diagnostic doesn't show useful location when macro clashes with name in system header
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:18:00 -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: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dodji at seketeli dot 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-55252-4-5VxGiIMLsz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55252-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55252-4@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: 2012-11/txt/msg01792.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D55252

--- Comment #10 from dodji at seketeli dot org <dodji at seketeli dot org> =
2012-11-19 17:18:00 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> a =C3=A9crit:

> The idea seems good. It would also handle comment #4 testcase.

Yeah, and I think it would be a step in the direction of printing ranges
for expressions.  I know you and I share a (not so) secret dream of
seeing taht in GCC one day.  :-)

> However, I am not sure how you would implement this.

That is the real issue, I guess.

I suspect this could be like opening a can of worms.  In G++, I guess
I'd start with updating the hypothetical 'current expression' variable
in cp_parser_expression.  But then we need to handle tentative parsing.
That is, if we are in a tentative parse, save the new 'current
expression' on the side, and really save it when the parse is
committed.

And pray for the fall-outs to not be in the order of dozens.  :-)

> different issue is why the macro unwinder cares about system-headers? See
> comment #3.

Right, I have replied to that in an earlier comment.

Thanks.