From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-266070-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26212 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2010 08:56:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 26198 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2010 08:56:47 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-wy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-wy0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:56:42 +0000
Received: by wyb40 with SMTP id 40so371704wyb.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.91.7 with SMTP id g7mr2216116wef.93.1277283400179; Wed, 23 	Jun 2010 01:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.38.74 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C21C7EE.4060805@oracle.com>
References: <4C2060CC.3040401@oracle.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1006221246280.729@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> 	<4C21C7EE.4060805@oracle.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Manuel_L=F3pez=2DIb=E1=F1ez?= <lopezibanez@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:31:00 -0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimPHdZ7Pvp-E105F9Uok89Plmtk4W2ph-zxJiJV@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH C] Fix pr44517
To: Shujing Zhao <pearly.zhao@oracle.com>
Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, 	Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg02293.txt.bz2

Nice improvement! Some unimportant comments:

@@ -2843,8 +2828,12 @@ c_parser_parameter_declaration (c_parser
     {
       /* ??? In some Objective-C cases '...' isn't applicable so there
 	 should be a different message.  */
-      c_parser_error (parser,
-		      "expected declaration specifiers or %<...%>");
+      c_token *token = c_parser_peek_token (parser);
+      if (parser->error)
+	return NULL;
+      parser->error = true;
+      c_parser_set_source_position_from_token (token);
+      error ("unknown type name %qE", token->value);
       c_parser_skip_to_end_of_parameter (parser);
       return NULL;
     }

The ??? comment does not make sense anymore (and without any example
wasn't very useful to start with), I would propose to remove it. BTW,
do you know that there is a error_at (LOCATION) function? I am not
sure whether here using that is more correct (or efficient) than
c_parser_set_source_position_from_token but just to let you know for
future patches.


+/* PR c/44517: Improve diagnostic for misspelled typename in function
declaration. */
+int foo(int x, pid_t y, long z, in t) {  /* { dg-error "unknown type
name.*pid_t|unknown type name.*in" } */
+  return x + y + z + t;
+}
+
+int bar(int x, lon y, long z, ...){ /* { dg-error "unknown type name"
{ target *-*-* } 8 } */
+  return;
+}
+
+void foo(int n, int a[n], pid_t x); /* { dg-error "unknown type name"
{ target *-*-* } 12 } */
+void bar() {};

What is the default dg action for tests without dg-do directive? Also,
I am not sure how these directives are working correctly, because the
complete format is:

{ dg-error PATTERN COMMENT { TARGET_SPEC } LINE }

so the comment is missing. As far as I know, you can drop arguments
from right to left but not, for example, put a LINE and not a TARGET
or COMMENT. (Unfortunate, because LINE is probably the second most
used after PATTERN). BTW, you do not need LINE if the error is given
in the same line as the directive dg-error.

Cheers,

Manuel.