[C,committed] Use protected_set_expr_location more

This patch makes the C FE use the protected_set_expr_location helper
where appropriate.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, applying to trunk.

2015-10-06  Marek Polacek  <polacek@redhat.com>

	* c-parser.c (c_parser_statement_after_labels): Use
	protected_set_expr_location.
	(c_parser_omp_clause_num_gangs): Likewise.
	(c_parser_omp_clause_num_threads): Likewise.
	(c_parser_omp_clause_num_workers): Likewise.
	(c_parser_omp_clause_vector_length): Likewise.
	(c_parser_omp_clause_num_teams): Likewise.
	(c_parser_omp_clause_thread_limit): Likewise.
	* c-typeck.c (build_c_cast): Likewise.
	(c_cast_expr): Likewise.


	Marek

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> wrote:
> This patch makes the C FE use the protected_set_expr_location helper
> where appropriate.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, applying to trunk.
>
> 2015-10-06  Marek Polacek  <polacek@redhat.com>
>
>         * c-parser.c (c_parser_statement_after_labels): Use
>         protected_set_expr_location.
>         (c_parser_omp_clause_num_gangs): Likewise.
>         (c_parser_omp_clause_num_threads): Likewise.
>         (c_parser_omp_clause_num_workers): Likewise.
>         (c_parser_omp_clause_vector_length): Likewise.
>         (c_parser_omp_clause_num_teams): Likewise.
>         (c_parser_omp_clause_thread_limit): Likewise.
>         * c-typeck.c (build_c_cast): Likewise.
>         (c_cast_expr): Likewise.
>
> diff --git gcc/c/c-parser.c gcc/c/c-parser.c
> index 0df7d7b..2d24c21 100644
> --- gcc/c/c-parser.c
> +++ gcc/c/c-parser.c
> @@ -5141,9 +5141,8 @@ c_parser_statement_after_labels (c_parser *parser, vec<tree> *chain)
>       (recursively) all of the component statements should already have
>       line numbers assigned.  ??? Can we discard no-op statements
>       earlier?  */
> -  if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (stmt)
> -      && EXPR_LOCATION (stmt) == UNKNOWN_LOCATION)
> -    SET_EXPR_LOCATION (stmt, loc);
> +  if (EXPR_LOCATION (stmt) == UNKNOWN_LOCATION)
> +    protected_set_expr_location (stmt, loc);

This one doesn't look like an improvement though as EXPR_LOCATION tests
CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P and returns UNKNOWN_LOCATION if not.

>
>    parser->in_if_block = in_if_block;
>  }
> @@ -10681,8 +10680,7 @@ c_parser_omp_clause_num_gangs (c_parser *parser, tree list)
>        /* Attempt to statically determine when the number isn't positive.  */
>        c = fold_build2_loc (expr_loc, LE_EXPR, boolean_type_node, t,
>                        build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (t), 0));
> -      if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (c))
> -       SET_EXPR_LOCATION (c, expr_loc);
> +      protected_set_expr_location (c, expr_loc);
>        if (c == boolean_true_node)
>         {
>           warning_at (expr_loc, 0,
> @@ -10726,8 +10724,7 @@ c_parser_omp_clause_num_threads (c_parser *parser, tree list)
>        /* Attempt to statically determine when the number isn't positive.  */
>        c = fold_build2_loc (expr_loc, LE_EXPR, boolean_type_node, t,
>                        build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (t), 0));
> -      if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (c))
> -       SET_EXPR_LOCATION (c, expr_loc);
> +      protected_set_expr_location (c, expr_loc);
>        if (c == boolean_true_node)
>         {
>           warning_at (expr_loc, 0,
> @@ -10771,8 +10768,7 @@ c_parser_omp_clause_num_workers (c_parser *parser, tree list)
>        /* Attempt to statically determine when the number isn't positive.  */
>        c = fold_build2_loc (expr_loc, LE_EXPR, boolean_type_node, t,
>                        build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (t), 0));
> -      if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (c))
> -       SET_EXPR_LOCATION (c, expr_loc);
> +      protected_set_expr_location (c, expr_loc);
>        if (c == boolean_true_node)
>         {
>           warning_at (expr_loc, 0,
> @@ -11116,8 +11112,7 @@ c_parser_omp_clause_vector_length (c_parser *parser, tree list)
>        /* Attempt to statically determine when the number isn't positive.  */
>        c = fold_build2_loc (expr_loc, LE_EXPR, boolean_type_node, t,
>                        build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (t), 0));
> -      if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (c))
> -       SET_EXPR_LOCATION (c, expr_loc);
> +      protected_set_expr_location (c, expr_loc);
>        if (c == boolean_true_node)
>         {
>           warning_at (expr_loc, 0,
> @@ -11193,8 +11188,7 @@ c_parser_omp_clause_num_teams (c_parser *parser, tree list)
>        /* Attempt to statically determine when the number isn't positive.  */
>        c = fold_build2_loc (expr_loc, LE_EXPR, boolean_type_node, t,
>                            build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (t), 0));
> -      if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (c))
> -       SET_EXPR_LOCATION (c, expr_loc);
> +      protected_set_expr_location (c, expr_loc);
>        if (c == boolean_true_node)
>         {
>           warning_at (expr_loc, 0, "%<num_teams%> value must be positive");
> @@ -11237,8 +11231,7 @@ c_parser_omp_clause_thread_limit (c_parser *parser, tree list)
>        /* Attempt to statically determine when the number isn't positive.  */
>        c = fold_build2_loc (expr_loc, LE_EXPR, boolean_type_node, t,
>                            build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (t), 0));
> -      if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (c))
> -       SET_EXPR_LOCATION (c, expr_loc);
> +      protected_set_expr_location (c, expr_loc);
>        if (c == boolean_true_node)
>         {
>           warning_at (expr_loc, 0, "%<thread_limit%> value must be positive");
> diff --git gcc/c/c-typeck.c gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> index 10cad36..df3245a4 100644
> --- gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> +++ gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> @@ -5216,8 +5216,7 @@ build_c_cast (location_t loc, tree type, tree expr)
>                || TREE_CODE (expr) == COMPLEX_CST)))
>        value = build1 (NOP_EXPR, type, value);
>
> -  if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (value))
> -    SET_EXPR_LOCATION (value, loc);
> +  protected_set_expr_location (value, loc);
>    return value;
>  }
>
> @@ -5255,8 +5254,8 @@ c_cast_expr (location_t loc, struct c_type_name *type_name, tree expr)
>        SET_EXPR_LOCATION (ret, loc);
>      }
>
> -  if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (ret) && !EXPR_HAS_LOCATION (ret))
> -    SET_EXPR_LOCATION (ret, loc);
> +  if (!EXPR_HAS_LOCATION (ret))
> +    protected_set_expr_location (ret, loc);
>
>    /* C++ does not permits types to be defined in a cast, but it
>       allows references to incomplete types.  */
>
>         Marek

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 10:14:54AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > --- gcc/c/c-parser.c
> > +++ gcc/c/c-parser.c
> > @@ -5141,9 +5141,8 @@ c_parser_statement_after_labels (c_parser *parser, vec<tree> *chain)
> >       (recursively) all of the component statements should already have
> >       line numbers assigned.  ??? Can we discard no-op statements
> >       earlier?  */
> > -  if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (stmt)
> > -      && EXPR_LOCATION (stmt) == UNKNOWN_LOCATION)
> > -    SET_EXPR_LOCATION (stmt, loc);
> > +  if (EXPR_LOCATION (stmt) == UNKNOWN_LOCATION)
> > +    protected_set_expr_location (stmt, loc);
> 
> This one doesn't look like an improvement though as EXPR_LOCATION tests
> CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P and returns UNKNOWN_LOCATION if not.

Yeah, but protected_set_expr_location tests CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P so we
wouldn't set the location anyway.

But I can surely revert that bit if you prefer.

	Marek

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 10:14:54AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > --- gcc/c/c-parser.c
>> > +++ gcc/c/c-parser.c
>> > @@ -5141,9 +5141,8 @@ c_parser_statement_after_labels (c_parser *parser, vec<tree> *chain)
>> >       (recursively) all of the component statements should already have
>> >       line numbers assigned.  ??? Can we discard no-op statements
>> >       earlier?  */
>> > -  if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (stmt)
>> > -      && EXPR_LOCATION (stmt) == UNKNOWN_LOCATION)
>> > -    SET_EXPR_LOCATION (stmt, loc);
>> > +  if (EXPR_LOCATION (stmt) == UNKNOWN_LOCATION)
>> > +    protected_set_expr_location (stmt, loc);
>>
>> This one doesn't look like an improvement though as EXPR_LOCATION tests
>> CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P and returns UNKNOWN_LOCATION if not.
>
> Yeah, but protected_set_expr_location tests CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P so we
> wouldn't set the location anyway.
>
> But I can surely revert that bit if you prefer.

Well, it's not my call but the original code is clearer if one looks
up EXPR_LOCATION.

Richard.

>         Marek