From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-407885-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 52327 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2015 00:22:15 -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 52317 invoked by uid 89); 21 Sep 2015 00:22:14 -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-qg0-f53.google.com
Received: from mail-qg0-f53.google.com (HELO mail-qg0-f53.google.com) (209.85.192.53) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 00:22:13 +0000
Received: by qgt47 with SMTP id 47so78090036qgt.2        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:22:11 -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=EbsQAaQ16Xn2UfUpytInq+tNVPTvz3DliP8eQaNGvys=;        b=lpIqXX0eaBLD7qLOpH5rfB67HJ+2+D5hZZIL1vMoehbYsLDl1Qg99mbqmFx49BqX56         7x4NIXReV4+HLEx+SkXGWlBkxKok/7fDIHrOIMQREn6+aS3LNoZeFeZMeMIlC3YkcQdT         7vyr2lCbmH4vX6ntgcL6YLg1vi7uVsNf8d03flbJks4k4dsu6nZGyupo0+1uz8c3oEVT         4ysgjqGYyJfoBwojiB9G8JsWLk2e+YKGyMicuV958LmMmZjo5kwIbLaXjq4CK/yw6I9E         QnYwHGdfexxV3S6pwtXoB87tOvi1ktTY+4wDc41rwfIGX87kiPSZn34XdkZEXi232XZ6         qadQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnTEn5QAb4wxaMUc8gAeOQoppXB53CPzT+IrMCBwfsrDNESjC23yUSMtsHneFIkgAXJSPWQ
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.20.168 with SMTP id 37mr19388384qgj.16.1442794931766; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.44.10 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAESRpQCe5=ih8-kw-kMg7v+rxLHbfdr3VtGAfbyyPFJ=Fez+aQ@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>	<CAESRpQCe5=ih8-kw-kMg7v+rxLHbfdr3VtGAfbyyPFJ=Fez+aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 00:24:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAKdteOb0ZsF26pctO+ObqoqEXZmCHk2cwjnQvX5K9BRYRrtH5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH c/c++] use explicit locations for some warnings in c-pragma.c
From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFudWVsIEzDs3Blei1JYsOhw7Fleg==?= <lopezibanez@gmail.com>
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-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg01510.txt.bz2

On 20 September 2015 at 23:40, Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez
<lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 } */

It works for me if I replace 24 by 62.

Christophe.

>
>  #pragma GCC diagnostic warn /* { dg-warning "24:expected" } */
>
>  #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wfoo" /* { dg-warning "32:unknown" } */
>
> Cheers,
>
> Manuel.