On Jul 11, 2003, Neil Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote:- >> >> + _cpp_do_file_change (pfile, LC_RENAME, dir_with_slashes, 1, 0); >> >> + _cpp_do_file_change (pfile, LC_RENAME, name, 1, 0); >> >> + } >> >> > Is the second rename necessary? I don't see why it should be; >> > if not let's not do it. >> >> AFAICT, yes. Without it, -E -fpreprocessed is not equivalent to >> `cat'.
> <builtin-in> doesn't do this; you used to cite <built-in> as precedent > for what you do. Err... This has nothing to do with the built-in. It has to do with the fact that, without the second rename, we'll emit a # 2 "main_filename" after the directory line marker when doing -E -fpreprocessed. > cpplib is a library. It couldn't care less if the client has a problem. In my book, libraries should propagate errors in callbacks out to its callers. > Debug output is a client-specific issue. This is not about debug output. This is about preserving directory information in preprocessing. > We're talking about a cpplib feature, and so a specific client error > is obviously out of place in cpplib. This means the error, at its location, should be rephrased, not removed. But I'll instead move it into the callback. This should be fine, even though it won't trigger an error in case of -E -fpreprocessed, which is why I placed the logic for printing the error where I did. > Do you tell cpplib to report if the compiler meets an invalid tree node? No, but cpplib does report an error if it encounters an invalid pragma. > This whole thing is a cpplib feature for which debug output is > orthogonal - it just happens to be the use that this client puts the > feature to. -gpwd and -gno-pwd therefore, whilst better than -M stuff, > are not ideal. Agreed. > -fpwd has builtin-in support for the negative, is forwarded to CPP > automically, and is therefore the clear choice. I don't see anything clear about it. -f to me is an option to the compiler. This one isn't. It's an option to the preprocessor. I'm currently thinking -Pwd would be the best choice, since -P has to do with printing line markers, but If you care so much about -fpwd, I'll go with that. I don't care. I want the feature, I don't want complexity, I don't want this debate to go on forever, I just want you and Zack to agree on what both of you find acceptable such that I can go ahead and get the patch in. I'm tired of getting agreement from one of you, waste the time implementing the change, just to have the other disagree with what the one explicitly agreed with. This has been very frustrating. -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
