Hi David, Patrick,

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 18:33:46 +0200
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:24:06 -0400
> Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 7:26 PM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via
> > Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:  
> 
> > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc
> > > index 131b212ff73..19dfb3ed782 100644
> > > --- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc
> > > +++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc
> > > @@ -1173,7 +1173,7 @@ build_cplus_array_type (tree elt_type, tree index_type, int dependent)
> > >      }
> > >
> > >    /* Avoid spurious warnings with VLAs (c++/54583).  */
> > > -  if (TYPE_SIZE (t) && EXPR_P (TYPE_SIZE (t)))
> > > +  if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (TYPE_SIZE (t)))    
> > 
> > Hmm, this change seems undesirable...  
> 
> mhm, yes that is misleading. I'll prepare a patch to revert this.
> Let me have a look if there were other such CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P changes
> that we'd want to revert.

Sorry for that!
I'd revert the hunk above and the one in gcc-rich-location.cc
(maybe_range_label_for_tree_type_mismatch::get_text), please see
attached. Bootstrap running, ok for trunk if it passes?

thanks,