From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 71504 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2015 17:08:02 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 71384 invoked by uid 89); 23 Nov 2015 17:08:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:07:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EAF08F28D; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:07:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-204-24.brq.redhat.com [10.40.204.24]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tANH7rqV013834 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:07:56 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:09:00 -0000 From: Marek Polacek To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: David Malcolm , Richard Biener , Jason Merrill , GCC Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] C++ FE: expression ranges (v2) Message-ID: <20151123170752.GO21807@redhat.com> References: <1446868737-3306-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <1447563717-24429-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <564E3512.9080701@redhat.com> <56501A61.6010806@redhat.com> <20151121082151.GQ5675@tucnak.redhat.com> <1448297620.19594.168.camel@surprise> <20151123165754.GF5675@tucnak.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151123165754.GF5675@tucnak.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg02766.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 05:57:54PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:53:40AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > > Does the following look like the kind of thing you had in mind? (just > > the tree.def part for now). Presumably usable for both lvalues and > > rvalues, where the thing it wraps is what's important. It merely exists > > to add an EXPR_LOCATION, for a usage of the wrapped thing. > > Yes, but please see with Jason, Richard and perhaps others if they are ok > with that too before spending too much time in that direction. > All occurrences of it would have to be folded away during the gimplification > at latest, this shouldn't be something we use in the middle-end. I'd expect LOCATION_EXPR be defined in c-family/c-common.def, not tree.def. And I'd think it shouldn't survive genericizing, thus never leak into the ME. Marek