From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24723 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2015 20:32:47 -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 24713 invoked by uid 89); 20 Sep 2015 20:32:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-qk0-f170.google.com Received: from mail-qk0-f170.google.com (HELO mail-qk0-f170.google.com) (209.85.220.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:32:45 +0000 Received: by qkfq186 with SMTP id q186so38066676qkf.1 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:32:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UmFICfvAtFCJ28W+w1w6ameFxN8uYjn3TSLP9nAC5Iw=; b=hjJ9q2uG34nFufCc2CELbrZN7YwQgvSG9tqH/jHYuJVMFbvsfZGJBzxxfL5lBxXzYT AhMQPmbzwuZMAPkwrBodK+xse5+9+5vcdcSe5+8XbEp1nnCTmAvRr8Ma13DN0BBd++ra u4SlkxZjIQ1OnDbuNfD8yK8fKnjYnDNENOLRr6VOmpt86JJIZFG/REM/72Lru08lHf7d iQUHjQXh/W7HsPfSbDSMEdElnAi6QtflaWNlFev6FEWDIArbfZu72+HlDYdBVUWP4xU2 6uitMfqJdA6Yhry7qWYZVQ0JhEi7kaNueGM06DY5Y4udzAP1y5T/pouz4LA4bdo78i1f gHXg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm0SbtUac9ENiO88B2H8VqUL4QDRexERO0+FYn1FYm75omdELDU3aftGNvLnHwX/TFDOn/L MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.23.9 with SMTP id i9mr19161052qkh.22.1442781163458; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.44.10 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:32:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150525195650.GY27320@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH c/c++] use explicit locations for some warnings in c-pragma.c From: Christophe Lyon To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFudWVsIEzDs3Blei1JYsOhw7Fleg==?= Cc: Marek Polacek , Gcc Patch List , "Joseph S. Myers" , Jason Merrill Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg01498.txt.bz2 On 25 May 2015 at 22:16, Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez wrote: > On 25 May 2015 at 21:56, Marek Polacek wrote: >> Perhaps we should introduce GCC_BAD_LOC with a location_t argument and u= se 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? I can see the newly introduced test (gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c) failing: /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c:2:= 83: warning: missing [error|warning|ignored|push|pop] after '#pragma GCC diagnostic' [-Wpragmas] /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c:4:= 24: warning: expected [error|warning|ignored|push|pop] after '#pragma GCC diagnostic' [-Wpragmas] /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c:6:= 32: warning: unknown option after '#pragma GCC diagnostic' kind [-Wpragmas] XFAIL: gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c missing (test for warnings, line 2) PASS: gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c (test for warnings, line 4) PASS: gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c (test for warnings, line 6) FAIL: gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pragma-diag-5.c:2:= 83: warning: missing [error|warning|ignored|push|pop] after '#pragma GCC diagnostic' [-Wpragmas] I'm not sure why, since the 1st warning is xfail. Christophe. > Manuel.