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, please check the wo
> "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 made the change.
>
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, 0
Tom> [ __VA_OPT__ ]
Tom> Here's v3.
Tom> Ping.
Tom> Ping #2.
Ping #3.
Tom
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes:
Tom> [ __VA_OPT__ ]
Tom> Here's v3.
Tom> Ping.
Ping #2.
Tom
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes:
[ __VA_OPT__ ]
Tom> Here's v3.
Ping.
Tom
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
+
+ * doc/cpp.tex
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 just
> "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'
statement
Alexander
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 on
10 matches
Mail list logo