[C++] Locations related grokdeclarator tweak

Message ID f290cde0-5a44-5902-72bc-080595da2f78@oracle.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • [C++] Locations related grokdeclarator tweak
Related show

Commit Message

Paolo Carlini Jan. 18, 2019, 11:13 a.m.
Hi,

a tweak to typespec_loc, where the existing conditional turns out to be 
just a special case of the full min_location that we want in order to do 
the right thing for testcases like diagnostic/trailing1.C. Tested 
x86_64-linux.

Thanks, Paolo.

//////////////////////
/cp
2018-01-18  Paolo Carlini  <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>

	* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Fix value assigned to typespec_loc, use
	min_location.

/testsuite
2018-01-18  Paolo Carlini  <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>

	* g++.dg/diagnostic/trailing1.C: New.

Comments

Jason Merrill Jan. 21, 2019, 5:22 p.m. | #1
On 1/18/19 6:13 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> a tweak to typespec_loc, where the existing conditional turns out to be 

> just a special case of the full min_location that we want in order to do 

> the right thing for testcases like diagnostic/trailing1.C. Tested 

> x86_64-linux.


This is OK, but I don't think we want to keep messing with diagnostic 
locations now that we're in stage 4.  This isn't a regression fix, is it?

Jason
Paolo Carlini Jan. 21, 2019, 5:38 p.m. | #2
Hi,

On 21/01/19 18:22, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 1/18/19 6:13 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:

>> a tweak to typespec_loc, where the existing conditional turns out to 

>> be just a special case of the full min_location that we want in order 

>> to do the right thing for testcases like diagnostic/trailing1.C. 

>> Tested x86_64-linux.

>

> This is OK, but I don't think we want to keep messing with diagnostic 

> locations now that we're in stage 4.  This isn't a regression fix, is it?


I agree, isn't a regression fix and probably we don't want to (further 
;) mess with locations in stage 4. In any case, I'm essentially done 
with most of the low hanging fruits, I continued for a while with what I 
had ready... Anyway, that said, what do you think, shall I schedule this 
one for next Stage 1?

Thanks! Paolo.

Patch

Index: cp/decl.c
===================================================================
--- cp/decl.c	(revision 268062)
+++ cp/decl.c	(working copy)
@@ -10341,9 +10341,9 @@  grokdeclarator (const cp_declarator *declarator,
 
   location_t typespec_loc = smallest_type_quals_location (type_quals,
 						      declspecs->locations);
+  typespec_loc = min_location (typespec_loc,
+			       declspecs->locations[ds_type_spec]);
   if (typespec_loc == UNKNOWN_LOCATION)
-    typespec_loc = declspecs->locations[ds_type_spec];
-  if (typespec_loc == UNKNOWN_LOCATION)
     typespec_loc = input_location;
 
   /* Look inside a declarator for the name being declared
Index: testsuite/g++.dg/diagnostic/trailing1.C
===================================================================
--- testsuite/g++.dg/diagnostic/trailing1.C	(nonexistent)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/diagnostic/trailing1.C	(working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ 
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+int const foo1() -> double;  // { dg-error "1:.foo1. function with trailing return type" }
+int volatile foo2() -> double;  // { dg-error "1:.foo2. function with trailing return type" }
+int const volatile foo3() -> double;  // { dg-error "1:.foo3. function with trailing return type" }