[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc
Subject:    Re: PATCH: work-around for bug in -traditional-cpp
From:       Marc Espie <espie () quatramaran ! ens ! fr>
Date:       2003-12-07 18:22:56
[Download RAW message or body]

In article <bqb9lu$m85$2@clipper.ens.fr> you write:
>On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 09:50:42PM +0000, Neil Booth wrote:
>> > 
>> > Okay, it looks like trad-cpp is messing with skipping.
>> 
>> If you're skipping you shouldn't even be attempting to expand
>> macros.
>
>Yes, sure. But I don't think trad-cpp knows whether it's skipping
>at this point. It does expand macros early, and then it will use
>them or discard them when it finds out whether it's skipping or not.
>
>This is not my code. I'm only concerned about not getting warnings
>when I should not get any, e.g., make the code work.
>
>If you can figure what's actually going on, and can clean it up,
>that will be fine.
>

Okay, is anybody actually intending to look deeper at this code ?
The work-around I posted actually fixes things for me, and if no-one
wants to search at what's going on deeper, I believe that a preprocessor
without bogus warnings is better than a preprocessor with bogus warnings...
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]