From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25889 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2003 21:12:25 -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 25864 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2003 21:12:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.alinoe.com) (62.195.88.134) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2003 21:12:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 11376 invoked by uid 500); 7 Oct 2003 21:12:18 -0000 Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:12:00 -0000 From: Carlo Wood To: Richard Henderson , 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: <20031007211218.GA11213@alinoe.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, wilson@specifixinc.com, jason@redhat.com References: <20031006215315.GA29799@alinoe.com> <20031006215536.GB9757@redhat.com> <20031006223034.GA31753@alinoe.com> <20031006231706.GB4839@redhat.com> <20031006234940.GA3134@alinoe.com> <20031007000703.GD4839@redhat.com> <20031007004305.GA8485@alinoe.com> <20031007004647.GA5397@redhat.com> <20031007183231.GA5743@alinoe.com> <20031007194604.GA18217@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031007194604.GA18217@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 12:46:04PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:32:31PM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote: > > Next, I manually investigated every place where this happened > > and either turned off the warning (using TREE_CODE_NOCHECK or > > with ++nocheck ... --nocheck wraps) and/or added code to handle > > the EXPR_WITH_FILE_LOCATION. > > I think you're completely off-track with this. You'll get > near 100% false hits with this scheme. More like 80 - 90%. But its the only sheme that garantees that you won't miss a hit. Did you look at the patch? Then you'd see that there are many places where there *is* a need to add special case handling. Yes, most hits are for TREE_CODE(t) == SOMETHINGELSE, but you have to look at those lines before you can see that it says 'SOMETHINGELSE' and not 'CALL_EXPR'. The huge amount of places where the WFL happily shows up proves that it is not handled as automatically as you seem to believe. Can we now please forget about using WFL? Trust me, the result would be unmaintainable. -- Carlo Wood