On 2024-03-18 00:30, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>+@item __EXP_COUNTER__
>>+This macro's name means "(macro) expansion counter".
>>+Outside of macro replacement sequences, it expands to the integer
>>+token @code{1}. This make it possible to easily test for the presence
>>+of this feature using conditional directives such as
>>+@code{#if __EXP_COUNTER__}.
>
> It's a macro, so you can just use '#ifdef __EXP_COUNTER__' to test if
> it's supported. Is this additional behaviour necessary?
Thanks for looking at the patch.
The macro has to be defined, but it doesn't have to be 1.
Outside a macro body, it could just appear defined
with an empty value, as if by #define __EXP_COUNTER__.
When I dump the predefined macros of a nearby GCC installation, I
see very few empty ones:
$ echo | gcc -dM -E - | awk 'NF == 2'
#define __USER_LABEL_PREFIX__
#define __REGISTER_PREFIX__
The __EXP_COUNTER__ and __UEXP_COUNTER__ symbols are
intended for suffix and infix use, so they are roughly in
a kind of category with those those two.
I will make that change, and also fix the grammar error
and remove the conflict-promoting ChangeLog changes.
