From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7834 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2003 23:17:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7827 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2003 23:17:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com) (66.187.237.200) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Oct 2003 23:17:06 -0000 Received: from frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h96NH62m004858; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:17:06 -0700 Received: (from rth@localhost) by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h96NH69r004856; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:17:06 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 23:17:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, wilson@specifixinc.com, jason@redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Adding a location_t (or pointer) to tree_exp for 3.4 only. Message-ID: <20031006231706.GB4839@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, wilson@specifixinc.com, jason@redhat.com References: <20030922001710.GA24248@alinoe.com> <20030927124920.GA16447@alinoe.com> <20031006174054.GC17794@redhat.com> <20031006190817.GA9460@alinoe.com> <20031006201102.GA5019@redhat.com> <20031006201423.GA10085@nevyn.them.org> <20031006202057.GB5019@redhat.com> <20031006215315.GA29799@alinoe.com> <20031006215536.GB9757@redhat.com> <20031006223034.GA31753@alinoe.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031006223034.GA31753@alinoe.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 12:30:34AM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote: > Now I don't understand your remark because when I add a location > to every CALL_EXPR by means of wrapping every CALL_EXPR in a WFL, > then get_callee_fndecl is thus called with a WFL that wraps the > CALL_EXPR. That was the whole point no? To *replace* *every* > CALL_EXPR with a EXPR_WITH_FILE_LOCATION, so I did :/ Sure. But previously the code must have been looking for CALL_EXPR by virtue of a switch/test/whatever. This is obvious because we were not aborting in get_callee_fndecl. I expect this to change not at all. I would expect wrapping with WFL would not change this at all. I would expect that we'd simply call expand_expr one extra time, and the subsequent recursion on the contained call_expr to do exactly what we would have done before your change. So your comment re get_callee_fndecl continues to make no sense. r~ PS: Your response should include a *detailed* explanation for how we would get into the situation that you describe.