From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 037623858025; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:14:12 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 037623858025
From: "eggert at cs dot ucla.edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug preprocessor/98021] #warning issues redundant diagnostic lines
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:14:11 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: preprocessor
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: eggert at cs dot ucla.edu
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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: <bug-98021-4-j2DueRXqIo@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-98021-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-98021-4@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-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 02:14:12 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98021

--- Comment #2 from eggert at cs dot ucla.edu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> so you are asking not to show the source file for #warning ?

That's the possibility I suggested, yes. Another possibility would be to not
show the diagnostic, and just show the source file. The point is to avoid t=
he
duplication.

> I don't see why this warning should be treated as any different from any
> other warning.

In other warnings, it's useful to show both the diagnostic and the source c=
ode
line because they're different. For '#warning "xxx"' they're the same so
there's no point to showing both and there is a downside that the output is
redundant and confusing.=