From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10379 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2011 20:19:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 10317 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Oct 2011 20:19:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:19:14 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p94KInIX003917 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:18:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (ovpn-113-20.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.20]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p94KIl8w021968 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:18:48 -0400 Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 500) id 97EE529C129; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:18:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Dodji Seketeli To: Jason Merrill Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, tromey@redhat.com, gdr@integrable-solutions.net, joseph@codesourcery.com, burnus@net-b.de, charlet@act-europe.fr, bonzini@gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] Emit macro expansion related diagnostics References: <1291979498-1604-1-git-send-email-dodji@redhat.com> <4E74AA75.8090106@redhat.com> <4E778A26.1000707@redhat.com> <4E77ACA1.80205@redhat.com> <4E789C5B.20509@redhat.com> <4E793BF4.4010103@redhat.com> <4E7B497F.8060301@redhat.com> <4E80E47C.305@redhat.com> <4E83B6D5.5030907@redhat.com> <4E84C9FA.30604@redhat.com> <4E85E004.2030706@redhat.com> <4E8B6580.3090404@redhat.com> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4E8B6580.3090404@redhat.com> (Jason Merrill's message of "Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:58:56 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00265.txt.bz2 Jason Merrill writes: > So then this change would make > > _Complex c; > > OK, but not > > static _Complex c; > > because the first declspec is not from a macro, right? Yes. > >> I believe you noted this at some point and >> agreed with me that ideally each declspec should come with its location >> but that's work for another occasion. > > If I'm right about the above example, I think I'd rather hold off this > declspecs change until that time. OK. -- Dodji