From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1810 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2011 00:51:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 1797 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Apr 2011 00:51:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,TW_JS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:50:54 +0000 Received: (qmail 3644 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2011 00:50:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (froydnj@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 22 Apr 2011 00:50:53 -0000 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 02:49:00 -0000 From: Nathan Froyd To: Jason Merrill Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH PING] c++-specific bits of tree-slimming patches Message-ID: <20110422005052.GU23480@codesourcery.com> References: <20110324131518.GO23480@codesourcery.com> <4D9F4AE0.6050200@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D9F4AE0.6050200@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg01839.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 01:50:24PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 03/24/2011 09:15 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote: >> + tree t = make_node (CASE_LABEL_EXPR); >> + >> + TREE_TYPE (t) = void_type_node; >> + SET_EXPR_LOCATION (t, input_location); > > As jsm and richi said, using input_location like this is a regression. > Can we use DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (label_decl) instead? I went off and tried that; some callers provide a NULL label_decl. What's the right thing to do in that case--use UNKNOWN_LOCATION or input_location? I'm leaning towards the former. -Nathan