From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-409491-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 62606 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2015 13:59:15 -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 60446 invoked by uid 89); 7 Oct 2015 13:59:12 -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,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-yk0-f174.google.com
Received: from mail-yk0-f174.google.com (HELO mail-yk0-f174.google.com) (209.85.160.174) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 13:59:11 +0000
Received: by ykdz138 with SMTP id z138so17346357ykd.2        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 06:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.13.215 with SMTP id 206mr1018188ywn.280.1444226349076; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 06:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.93.136 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 06:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20151007110200.GX6184@redhat.com>
References: <20151006172959.GT6184@redhat.com>	<CAFiYyc0W_enhP1KJM9vVLccG7hZ7mnH+TbGXeyLBrDiO+F=zCw@mail.gmail.com>	<20151007110200.GX6184@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 13:59:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc24TZbbFXXukXC-PhTOvZ2SnZrdixVFvgOUFt4_meJe2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [C PATCH, committed] Use protected_set_expr_location more
From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00712.txt.bz2

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 10:14:54AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > --- gcc/c/c-parser.c
>> > +++ gcc/c/c-parser.c
>> > @@ -5141,9 +5141,8 @@ c_parser_statement_after_labels (c_parser *parser, vec<tree> *chain)
>> >       (recursively) all of the component statements should already have
>> >       line numbers assigned.  ??? Can we discard no-op statements
>> >       earlier?  */
>> > -  if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (stmt)
>> > -      && EXPR_LOCATION (stmt) == UNKNOWN_LOCATION)
>> > -    SET_EXPR_LOCATION (stmt, loc);
>> > +  if (EXPR_LOCATION (stmt) == UNKNOWN_LOCATION)
>> > +    protected_set_expr_location (stmt, loc);
>>
>> This one doesn't look like an improvement though as EXPR_LOCATION tests
>> CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P and returns UNKNOWN_LOCATION if not.
>
> Yeah, but protected_set_expr_location tests CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P so we
> wouldn't set the location anyway.
>
> But I can surely revert that bit if you prefer.

Well, it's not my call but the original code is clearer if one looks
up EXPR_LOCATION.

Richard.

>         Marek