From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 124363 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2015 12:43:27 -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 124343 invoked by uid 89); 24 Nov 2015 12:43:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 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; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:43:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DAF9C0A1467 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-7-215.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.7.215]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tAOChMW9003979; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:43:23 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR c/68473: sanitize source range-printing within certain macro expansions To: David Malcolm References: <1448301150-13289-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <565353E6.2060403@redhat.com> <1448303208.19594.183.camel@surprise> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: <56545B6A.2080407@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:44:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1448303208.19594.183.camel@surprise> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg02894.txt.bz2 On 11/23/2015 07:26 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > In theory we could attempt to try to handle this kind of thing by > looking at the macro expansions, and to print something like: > > 13 TEST_EQ (fmin); > ^~~~ > 6 if ((long)FUNC##l(xl,xl) != (long)xl) \ > ~~~~~~~~ > > or whatnot, but that strikes me as error-prone at this stage. Could I ask you to spend some time looking at what would be involved at fixing it this way? In the end (assuming it doesn't prove to be a simple fix) we will probably go with your original patch for gcc-6, but it really goes against the grain to paper over a bug like this. Bernd