On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 01:33:34AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 01:21:48AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis scribbled: > > Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > OK, I found the statement about the preceeding non-witespace tokens but, > > > still, I would think that something that breaks the kernel compile should > > > be > > > important no matter how trivial to work-around it is... > > > > The question is whether it should be fixed in the compiler, or in the > > kernel. > Since the 3.x+ preprocessors don't exhibit this bug, I would rather say that > in the compiler. Also, the requirement of putting the spaces around the > comma is somewhat troublesome, counter-intuitive and not really justified by > anything, IMHO... Adding (or not) spaces should be a matter of style and not > syntax - since the C syntax doesn't require the spaces, the preprocessor > requirement is the more unexpected by a C/C++ programmer.
Since the 3.x preprocessors don't exhibit the bug, GCC doesn't need to be fixed; if the kernel wants to maintain compatibility with 2.95, then it should add the necessary space itself. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
