On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, David Malcolm wrote:

> This error message might be better to be worded in terms of the
> syntactic thing that came before, which would yield:
> 
> pr7356.c:1:2: error: expected ‘=’, ‘,’, ‘;’, ‘asm’ or ‘__attribute__’
> after declaration
>  a//sample
>   ^
> 
> or somesuch.  Doing so would presumably require adding an extra param to 
> c_parser_error, e.g. an enum describing the syntactic elements that go before.
> 
> Does this sound worth pursuing as a followup?

Yes.  When you're wording things in terms of what the syntax error comes 
after rather than saying it comes before some automatically-generated 
description of a token, it would be best if the caller passes the complete 
message in an i18n-friendly way, rather than using concat (bug 18248).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com