https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102939
--- Comment #4 from Gabriel Ravier <gabravier at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #3) > (In reply to Gabriel Ravier from comment #0) > ... > > #define PTR4 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 > > #define PTR5 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 > > #define PTR6 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 > > > > int PTR4 q3_var = 0; > ... > > Is the use of PTR4 instead of PTR6 or PTR5, intended to provoke comments > such as this one, or are there untold additional related observations? It's just a leftover I forgot to remove from when I was first testing this (with the bigger macros, which just had worse results).
