public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "tromey at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:50:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-56724-4-EAwq29YAmD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #5 from Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I tried this today with a recent-ish gcc trunk build, and
there's been a regression.
Now:
barimba. gcc --syntax-only r.c
r.c: In function ‘docall’:
r.c:7:10: warning: passing argument 3 of ‘callf’ from incompatible pointer type
return callf (23, 72,
^
r.c:3:5: note: expected ‘int (*)(double *)’ but argument is of type ‘int
(*)(int *)’
int callf (int, int, int (*)(double *));
^
Note how the first warning now points to "callf", whereas
in comment #0 it pointed to the actual argument causing the diagnostic.
The new situation is much worse for me as it prevents automated
rewriting...
>From gcc-bugs-return-451706-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu May 15 15:55:18 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-451706-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 14668 invoked by alias); 15 May 2014 15:55:18 -0000
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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 14622 invoked by uid 48); 15 May 2014 15:55:15 -0000
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/56724] sub-optimal location in error
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:55:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
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-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-56724-4-89sK7Lkhsa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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
X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg01398.txt.bz2
Content-length: 704
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #5)
> The new situation is much worse for me as it prevents automated
> rewriting...
What automated rewriting?
For 4.10/11, I would like to implement either fix-it hints or location ranges,
and I wonder what would be the most useful of the two.
>From gcc-bugs-return-451707-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu May 15 15:57:50 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-451707-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16246 invoked by alias); 15 May 2014 15:57:50 -0000
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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16196 invoked by uid 48); 15 May 2014 15:57:46 -0000
From: "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/61028] [4.9/4.10 Regression] -g3 -g leads to spurious warnings
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:57:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.1
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-61028-4-OzmrbkZ2Xo@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-61028-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-61028-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg01399.txt.bz2
Content-length: 314
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ida028
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> I remember some posts about the order of -gx -gy, but cannot find it right now.
It is pr61013, fixed by r210442 on trunk and r210456 for 4.9.1. AFAICT the
warnings are gone at r210475.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-15 15:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-56724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-03-25 18:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-25 18:46 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-26 7:25 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-15 15:50 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2014-05-15 15:59 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-16 18:53 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-19 18:47 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-25 15:40 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-27 20:15 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-05 3:09 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-05 5:41 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-05 9:35 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-11 14:36 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-22 12:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-16 9:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-56724-4-EAwq29YAmD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).