Re: [cfe-commits] [Patch] Fix for comma-removal ahead of __VA_ARGS__ in macros

[Andy Gibbs]

On Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:52 AM, Richard Smith wrote:

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Andy Gibbs wrote:

Ok, I've extended the test case to the following...

#define A(...)   [ __VA_ARGS__ ]
#define B(...)   [ , __VA_ARGS__ ]
#define C(...)   [ , ## __VA_ARGS__ ]
#define D(A,...) [ A , ## __VA_ARGS__ ]
#define E(A,...) [ __VA_ARGS__ ## A ]

1: A()      B()      C()      D()      E()
2: A(a)     B(a)     C(a)     D(a)     E(a)
3: A(,)     B(,)     C(,)     D(,)     E(,)
4: A(a,b,c) B(a,b,c) C(a,b,c) D(a,b,c) E(a,b,c)
5: A(a,b,)  B(a,b,)  C(a,b,)  D(a,b,)

It might also be worth considering "5: E(a,b,)", which is an error for
GNU and C99, and is valid in MS compatibility mode, where
token-pasting isn't required to form a valid token, and instead the
result is lexed for (possibly multiple) tokens.

I've left it out for now... this is actually a separate issue, since the
more general

#define X(A) , ## A
X(a) // generates: ,a

is valid under VC++ as well.  This can swept up in a separate patch.

// GCC: 1: [ ] [ , ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
// GCC: 2: [ a ] [ , a ] [ ,a ] [ a ] [ a ]
// GCC: 3: [ , ] [ , , ] [ ,, ] [ , ] [ ]
// GCC: 4: [ a,b,c ] [ , a,b,c ] [ ,a,b,c ] [ a ,b,c ] [ b,ca ]
// GCC: 5: [ a,b, ] [ , a,b, ] [ ,a,b, ] [ a ,b, ]

These look correct to me.

// C99: 1: [ ] [ , ] [ , ] [ ] [ ]
// C99: 2: [ a ] [ , a ] [ ,a ] [ a ] [ a ]
// C99: 3: [ , ] [ , , ] [ ,, ] [ , ] [ ]
// C99: 4: [ a,b,c ] [ , a,b,c ] [ ,a,b,c ] [ a ,b,c ] [ b,ca ]
// C99: 5: [ a,b, ] [ , a,b, ] [ ,a,b, ] [ a ,b, ]

Yes, these look right too. It looks like the only one of these we get
wrong is 1C (where we also incorrectly produce an error in
-pedantic-errors mode). Many of these have undefined behavior (other
than 1C, we produce -pedantic-errors diagnostics in exactly the right
set of cases).

// MS: 1: [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
// MS: 2: [ a ] [ , a ] [ ,a ] [ a ] [ a ]
// MS: 3: [ , ] [ , , ] [ ,, ] [ ] [ ]
// MS: 4: [ a,b,c ] [ , a,b,c ] [ ,a,b,c ] [ a ,b,c ] [ b,ca ]
// MS: 5: [ a,b, ] [ , a,b, ] [ ,a,b, ] [ a ,b, ]

5E: [ b,a ]

Can you think of any further pertinent tests that I have omitted, or
does that now cover it?

That seems like pretty good coverage to me. According to a commenter
on MSDN, the Microsoft implementation has another quirk:

#define F(...) [ a , b __VA_ARGS__ ]
F() // [ a b ]

(note that the comma removed is not next to __VA_ARGS__). Even if
that's true, I'm not convinced that we should replicate that behavior.

Yes, that looks like a bug to me.  I'd vote to leave this out until
someone finds a need of it.

Attached is a replacement patch, adding a few more tests and cleaning the
code up somewhat.  There remains one case in the Microsoft-compatibility
mode where the output doesn't match VC++ and I can't find where the best
solution to this is presently, but (importantly) it is not a regression.

Ok for me to commit now?

Cheers
Andy


_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits