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]


Reply via email to