[Bug c/91669] #pragma's and _Pragma's work but _Pragma's used in an equivalent macro don't

[Bug c/91669] #pragma's and _Pragma's work but _Pragma's used in an equivalent macro don't

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91669

Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I note that preprocessing itself is working. That is
  using -save-temps which first preprocesses the file and then runs the result
  on the compiler works
but doing everything in one step doesn't.

[Bug c/91669] #pragma's and _Pragma's work but _Pragma's used in an equivalent macro don't

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91669

--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Comparing the two inside handle_pragma_visibility:
* the no-save-temps version has as 'loc' the line pointing to
_Pragma(#__VA_ARGS__)
* with -save-temps, 'loc' == 'input_location'.

But: control_warning_option is called with input_location and not 'loc', thus
that should not be the reason for the issue.

 * * *

However, if one does a deep dive into update_effective_level_from_pragmas, the
difference seems to be only the column number. There is:

          if (!linemap_location_before_p (line_table, pragloc, loc))
            continue;

Without -save-temps, there is (with warnings + notes added for debugging):

foo.c:29:1: warning: update_effective_level_from_pragmas - pragloc
   29 | BX_retundef(})
      | ^~~~~~~~~~~
foo.c:29:13: note: loc is here
   29 | BX_retundef(})
      |             ^

thus loc > pragloc


But -save-temps, i.e. working on the preprocessed input, there is:

foo.c:29:9: warning: update_effective_level_from_pragmas - pragloc
   29 | BX_retundef(})
      |         ^~~
foo.c:29:2: note: loc is here
   29 | BX_retundef(})
      |  ^

That is:  loc < pragloc

[Bug c/91669] #pragma's and _Pragma's work but _Pragma's used in an equivalent macro don't

[lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91669

Lewis Hyatt <lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Lewis Hyatt <lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is already fixed on the latest GCC 10, 11, and 12 branches and on trunk
for GCC 13.

There were two separate issues contributing to this problem. The first one was
common to both C and C++, and it was fixed by r10-325 for PR90382. (That PR was
primarily about something else so was not focused on _Pragma locations, but the
fix resolved this PR too.)

The second issue made it stay broken longer for C only, not C++. In that sense
it's partially a dupe of PR97498 and this aspect was fixed by r13-1596. (Issue
was that in C, input_location used to be always the start of the line.) That
fix has been backported to 10, 11, and 12 branches already.

The testcase I added in r13-1596 provides partial coverage for this issue as
well, but it does not quite cover the issue with adhoc locations addressed by
r10-325. Here is a reduced testcase for this PR:

=======================
#define ENDFUNC \
    _Pragma("GCC diagnostic push") \
    _Pragma("GCC diagnostic ignored \"-Wreturn-type\"") \
     } \
     _Pragma("GCC diagnostic pop")

int f () {
ENDFUNC
=======================

I will submit a patch to add this testcase and then close this one once that's
applied.

[Bug c/91669] #pragma's and _Pragma's work but _Pragma's used in an equivalent macro don't

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91669

--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt <lhyatt@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:70e3f71a279856eabf99bbc92c0345c3ad20b615

commit r13-3051-g70e3f71a279856eabf99bbc92c0345c3ad20b615
Author: Lewis Hyatt <lhyatt@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat Oct 1 12:05:13 2022 -0400

    diagnostics: Add test for fixed _Pragma location issue [PR91669]

    This PR related to _Pragma locations and diagnostic pragmas was fixed by a
    combination of r10-325 and r13-1596. Add missing test coverage.

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            PR c/91669
            * c-c++-common/pr91669.c: New test.

[Bug c/91669] #pragma's and _Pragma's work but _Pragma's used in an equivalent macro don't

[lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91669

Lewis Hyatt <lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED

--- Comment #6 from Lewis Hyatt <lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Testcase has been added, resolving fixed.

[Bug c/91669] #pragma's and _Pragma's work but _Pragma's used in an equivalent macro don't

[lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91669

Lewis Hyatt <lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |falemagn at gmail dot com

--- Comment #7 from Lewis Hyatt <lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 85153 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***