From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 947 invoked by alias); 15 May 2014 15:50:03 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 32691 invoked by uid 48); 15 May 2014 15:49:57 -0000 From: "tromey at gcc dot 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 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: tromey 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: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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/msg01397.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D56724 --- Comment #5 from Tom Tromey --- 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 =E2=80=98docall=E2=80=99: r.c:7:10: warning: passing argument 3 of =E2=80=98callf=E2=80=99 from incom= patible pointer type return callf (23, 72, ^ r.c:3:5: note: expected =E2=80=98int (*)(double *)=E2=80=99 but argument is= of type =E2=80=98int (*)(int *)=E2=80=99 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: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: 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" 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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=3D56724 Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- (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 rang= es, 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: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: 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" 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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?id=61028 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > 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.