From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Neil Booth <NeilB@earthling.net>
To: Joern Rennecke <amylaar@cygnus.co.uk>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <egcs@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>, Jan Dvorak <johnydog@go.cz>, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@mediaone.net>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: warning: multi-line comment (why?)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:53:00 -0000
Message-id: <20000925235347.A12334@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>
References: <20000925230543.A28863@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <200009252218.XAA03418@phal.cygnus.co.uk>
X-SW-Source: 2000-09/msg00631.html

Joern Rennecke wrote:-
> > You get diagnostics as reqd by the standard.
> 
> Is that with or without a colomn number?

Ah, now I see what you're getting at.  The \\n case reports the
beginning of the in-progress token; missing \n reports the col number.
Not sure it's worth changing; it's not as if the location is in any
doubt.  Do you think it's worth the extra overhead to get a correctly
reported column number for unexpected EOF?

Neil.