http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See comment 3.
Every new option to GCC requires extra testing and extra maintenance. IMHO it's
not a good idea to add an option to support one use case in a single codebase,
which doesn't even use GCC the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
--- Comment #20 from Lucia Huang ---
Hi Andrew:
We use gcc as preprocessor to extand header files for C code.
It is used in a script to parse and check for error in a large code base
(6000+ files). Not all headers are needed to be extanded. As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Lucia Huang from comment #17)
> Hi,
> Is there an option to revert this change? To generate an error or warning
> for a missing header? Thanks.
Hi Lucia, no there is no such option. I d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Lucia Huang from comment #17)
> Hi,
> Is there an option to revert this change? To generate an error or warning
> for a missing header? Thanks.
What is the use case for having this as a non f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
Lucia Huang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eving.tw at gmail dot com
--- Comment #17 f
--- Comment #16 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-31 12:45 ---
Fixed for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSI
--- Comment #15 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-31 12:43 ---
Subject: Bug 15638
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Mar 31 12:43:29 2009
New Revision: 145341
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145341
Log:
PR preprocessor/15638
gcc:
* c-common.c (c_cpp_e
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-02-11 01:16
---
Subject: Re: gcc should have option to treat missing
headers as fatal
I have now posted my preliminary patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-02/msg00491.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-02-10 15:35
---
Subject: Re: gcc should have option to treat missing
headers as fatal
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Could we take a look at the patch? I have also a half-baked patch. Are you
> going
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-10 15:24 ---
Could we take a look at the patch? I have also a half-baked patch. Are you
going to replace cpplib functions completely or just set up call-backs as C++
does? If the latter, then there is already a patch in bug 34695.
--- Comment #11 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-10 15:17 ---
I plan to fix this for 4.5. Testing the preliminary patch to make cpplib use
the diagnostic.c infrastructure.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #10 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-03-28 17:37 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Always stopping is the right thing. Once Per finishes his fileline
> conversion, it will be possible to send cpplib's errors through
> diagnostic.c, and we will then be able to make this a fa
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 17:51 ---
*** Bug 30808 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
13 matches
Mail list logo
