Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

2017-11-13 Thread Jason Merrill
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > I'm still [not] too happy with the error message, so if you have any > suggestions there, please let me know. I removed the "C99" branch from > the earlier error message as well, since this isn't a C feature at all. > Again,

Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

2017-11-11 Thread Tom Tromey
> "Jason" == Jason Merrill writes: Jason> Do we want 1s for vaopt in the GNU rows, then? It seems to only be Jason> used for controlling the pedwarn about needing at least one argument Jason> for the variadic parameter. It seems reasonable to me, but I wasn't sure. I've

Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

2017-11-02 Thread Jason Merrill
On 09/17/2017 11:44 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: +@code{@w{__VA_OPT__}} is also available in GNU C and GNU C++. +{ /* c99 c++ xnum xid c11 std digr ulit rlit udlit bincst digsep trig u8chlit vaopt */ + /* GNUC89 */ { 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0,0, 0, 0,

Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

2017-11-02 Thread Tom Tromey
Tom> [ __VA_OPT__ ] Tom> Here's v3. Tom> Ping. Tom> Ping #2. Ping #3. Tom

Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

2017-10-19 Thread Tom Tromey
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: Tom> [ __VA_OPT__ ] Tom> Here's v3. Tom> Ping. Ping #2. Tom

Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

2017-10-09 Thread Tom Tromey
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: [ __VA_OPT__ ] Tom> Here's v3. Ping. Tom

Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

2017-09-17 Thread Tom Tromey
And, darn it, I forgot to save cpp.texi, leaving out a couple of tweaks there. Here's v3. Sorry about the noise. Tom diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog index e213db6..362f50e 100644 --- a/gcc/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2017-09-16 Tom Tromey + +

Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

2017-09-17 Thread Tom Tromey
Tom> I don't really understand the rationale for why the errors are phrased Tom> the way they are, but I notice the C errors generally mention C99 and Tom> the C++ errors generally mention C++11. So, since I didn't have a Tom> rationale, I copied what is already there. I thought maybe GCC is

Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

2017-09-17 Thread Tom Tromey
> "Alexander" == Alexander Monakov writes: Alexander> This hunk reverts CXX17 back to CXX1Z. Thanks for noticing, I'd written this before Jakub's patch and so the error came in during the rebase. Alexander> These two hunks add more duplication in already-duplicated 'if'

Re: [RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

2017-09-17 Thread Alexander Monakov
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Tom Tromey wrote: > --- a/gcc/doc/cpp.texi > +++ b/gcc/doc/cpp.texi > @@ -1675,20 +1675,27 @@ macro. We could define @code{eprintf} like this, > instead: [snip] > +This formulation looks more descriptive, but historically it was less > +flexible: you had to supply at least

[RFA] Implement __VA_OPT__

2017-09-16 Thread Tom Tromey
This implements __VA_OPT__, a new preprocessor feature added in C++2A. The paper can be found here: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0306r4.html I am not completely sure that I have handled the error reporting correctly. I chose to allow __VA_OPT__ generally, on the