Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg01107.html
cc-ing additional libcpp (i.e. preprocessor) maintainers and diagnostic messages maintainers On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Eric Gallager <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu> wrote: > Attached is a version of > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00481.html that contains > a combination of both the fix and the testcase update, as requested in > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81794#c2 > > I had to use a different computer than I usually use to send this > email, as the hard drive that originally had this patch is currently > unresponsive. Since it's also the one with my ssh keys on it, I can't > commit with it. Sorry if the ChangeLogs get mangled. > > libcpp/ChangeLog: > > 2017-03-24 Eric Gallager <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu> > > * macro.c (check_trad_stringification): Have warning be controlled by > -Wtraditional. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > 2017-09-17 Eric Gallager <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu> > > PR preprocessor/81794 > * gcc.dg/pragma-diag-7.c: Update to include check for > stringification. > > On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Eric Gallager <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu> wrote: >> Pinging this: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg01325.html >> >> On 3/24/17, Eric Gallager <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu> wrote: >>> It seemed odd to me that gcc was issuing a warning about compatibility >>> with traditional C that I couldn't turn off by pushing/popping >>> -Wtraditional over the problem area, so I made the attached (minor) >>> patch to fix it. Survives bootstrap, but the only testing I've done >>> with it has been compiling the one file that was giving me issues >>> previously, which I'd need to reduce further to turn it into a proper >>> test case. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Eric Gallager >>> >>> libcpp/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2017-03-24 Eric Gallager <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu> >>> >>> * macro.c (check_trad_stringification): Have warning be controlled by >>> -Wtraditional. >>> >> >> So I did the reducing I mentioned above and now have a testcase for >> it; it was pretty similar to the one from here: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg01319.html >> so I combined them into a single testcase and have attached the >> combined version. I can confirm that the testcase passes with my patch >> applied.
