Re: [PATCH c/c++] use explicit locations for some warnings in c-pragma.c

["Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez@gmail.com>]

On 20 September 2015 at 22:32, Christophe Lyon
<christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 25 May 2015 at 22:16, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 25 May 2015 at 21:56, Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Perhaps we should introduce GCC_BAD_LOC with a location_t argument and use it
>>> here.
>>
>> Why would we want to obfuscate code like that? I would propose to
>> actually remove GCC_BAD completely.
>>
> Hi
> It looks like this patch has finally been committed on 2015-09-18
> (r227923), right?

Yes, I had almost forgotten about it.

> I'm not sure why, since the 1st warning is xfail.

Strange that I missed this, but I can see it now. (Well, not so
strange, contrib/compare_tests sometimes produces nonsense)

Could you try with this patch? It seems to work for me. I'll commit it
as obvious if it works for you too.

Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c        (revision 227932)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c        (working copy)
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 /* { dg-do compile } */
-#pragma GCC diagnostic /* { dg-warning "24:missing" "missing" { xfail
*-*-* } } */
+#pragma GCC diagnostic /* { dg-warning "missing" "missing" } */
+/* { dg-warning "24:missing" "missing" { xfail *-*-* }  2 } */

 #pragma GCC diagnostic warn /* { dg-warning "24:expected" } */

 #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wfoo" /* { dg-warning "32:unknown" } */

Cheers,

Manuel.