[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:-
> In the example below, '&a' is the address of a local copy of 'a' not of
> 'a'.
> if the type of 'a' is changed to int, it works as expected.
Works as who expected? Where is the bug? Please quote which part of
the C standard is violated. You got an addre
Neil Booth wrote:-
> I think this fixes it for good. I'm applying this to 3.3, and 3.2.2
> when it arrives.
>
> Neil.
>
> PR preprocessor/8524
> * cpplib.c (run_directive): Remove previous kludge to _Pragma.
> Add a new one in its
I think this fixes it for good. I'm applying this to 3.3, and 3.2.2
when it arrives.
Neil.
PR preprocessor/8524
* cpplib.c (run_directive): Remove previous kludge to _Pragma.
Add a new one in its place, which hopefully works.
(skip_rest_of_line): Change test for b
Steve Ellcey wrote:-
>
> I am confused by the new test gcc.dg/cpp/_Pragma4.c that was added by
> this patch and wonder if I am missing something or if there is a typo in
> the test.
>
> I believe the test is searching for the string '#pragma bat' (bat with a
> t) to see if the tests succeeded, b
Zack Weinberg wrote:-
> This was reported to the Debian bug-tracking system:
>
> $ cat foo.c
> _Pragma("foo"); int y;
> #define FOO _Pragma("foo"); int x;
> FOO
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cpp-3.2 foo.c
> # 1 "foo.c"
> # 1 ""
> # 1 ""
> # 1 "foo.c"
>
> # 1 "foo.c"
> #pragma foo
> # 1 "foo.c"
>
Zack Weinberg wrote:-
> This was reported to the Debian bug-tracking system:
>
> $ cat foo.c
> _Pragma("foo"); int y;
> #define FOO _Pragma("foo"); int x;
> FOO
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cpp-3.2 foo.c
> # 1 "foo.c"
> # 1 ""
> # 1 ""
> # 1 "foo.c"
>
> # 1 "foo.c"
> #pragma foo
> # 1 "foo.c"
>
Martin v. Loewis wrote:-
> Neil Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If it's a system header, why are you lying to the compiler?
>
> I'm not lying, I use
You've not told the compiler it's a system header, so it doesn't think
it is. Let me see what Zack thinks.
Neil.
Martin,
If it's a system header, why are you lying to the compiler?
Maybe a real-life example and not "a.h" would help.
Neil.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:-
> >Description:
> In gcc 3.1, -MM prints dependencies even to files included with
> angle brackets (), if those are found through -I options.
> This behaviour is unintuitive and a change from earlier versions.
Why are you using <> brackets? Why is #inc
Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:-
> #if 0
> // int bar =3D 1;
> #endif
Zack, what's you opinion of this? Whether we accept the // can
affect tokenisation, which must still be valid in skipped blocks.
In other words, acceptance of
#if 0
// '
#endif
depends upon whether we accept //. I'm tempted
10 matches
Mail list logo
