Manuel López-Ibáñez - Re: [PING#3][PATCH][RFC] Warning for C++ malformed typedef [PR c++/23689 (original) (raw)

This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.orgmailing list for the GCC project.

• From: "Manuel López-Ibáñez"
• To: "Nathan Sidwell"
• Cc: "Simon Baldwin" , gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
• Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:46:32 +0000
• Subject: Re: [PING#3][PATCH][RFC] Warning for C++ malformed typedef [PR c++/23689]
• References: <45E4AAF1.40209@google.com> <45E56206.6050301@codesourcery.com>

On 28/02/07, Nathan Sidwell nathan@codesourcery.com wrote:

Simon Baldwin wrote:

The following change remains unreviewed and un-commented-on:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg00114.html

It's a two line change, accompanied by a tiny bit of test code.

The patch is ok, but can you check the error message. IIRC the ' chars should be %< and %> or similar. ok with that change, if it's needed.

In short,

• warning (0, "'typedef' was ignored in this declaration");

• warning (0, "%<typedef%> was ignored in this declaration");

Also, Simon says:

"Two of the existing tests also generate the warning: in typedef2, the warning is not noted by dejagnu because of an error at the same line;"

This is likely because DejaGNU is too greedy right now, so the dg-error matches both messages. This is a bug that hopefully will be fixed someday, so we should not rely on this behaviour to lazily avoid adding the correct dg-* options. So, please, try to match each message with the appropriate dg-error / dg-warning. That is, if there is an error and a warning, then there should be a dg-error and a dg-warning.

I am not a maintainer, so unless a maintainer agrees with me, you may ignore my comments.

Cheers,Manuel.

• References:
  • [PING#3][PATCH][RFC] Warning for C++ malformed typedef [PR c++/23689]
    * From: Simon Baldwin
  • Re: [PING#3][PATCH][RFC] Warning for C++ malformed typedef [PR c++/23689]
    * From: Nathan Sidwell