From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-407881-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 122305 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2015 21:41:40 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 122295 invoked by uid 89); 20 Sep 2015 21:41:39 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-wi0-f181.google.com
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f181.google.com) (209.85.212.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:41:39 +0000
Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so92503464wic.0        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.180.206.45 with SMTP id ll13mr9538107wic.6.1442785296018; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.186.214 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKdteOYY1O50YLv7URgXX1Yiht=VPJvgT6Z8p2k6bUrDfb6pCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAESRpQAss9wY48rxjsVC_VHn5c2bC+ZKf4m6fvL-ZNVFLkmKEA@mail.gmail.com> <20150525195650.GY27320@redhat.com> <CAESRpQA=V4JmGTzOmJxgjCe+_mUMXdhMMVBnuGiDeW8LxOYi5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKdteOYY1O50YLv7URgXX1Yiht=VPJvgT6Z8p2k6bUrDfb6pCw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFudWVsIEzDs3Blei1JYsOhw7Fleg==?= <lopezibanez@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 22:35:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAESRpQCe5=ih8-kw-kMg7v+rxLHbfdr3VtGAfbyyPFJ=Fez+aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH c/c++] use explicit locations for some warnings in c-pragma.c
To: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
Cc: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>, Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, 	"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg01506.txt.bz2

On 20 September 2015 at 22:32, Christophe Lyon
<christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 25 May 2015 at 22:16, Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez <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
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
--- 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.