No info in bug.
Created attachment 29641 [details] preprocesser output for first program
Created attachment 29642 [details] preprocesser output for second program
It looks as though it threw away everything I'd typed in when I added an attachment, & then submitted the empty report. <sigh> gcc produced extremely confusing error messages, referencing perfectly valid line:columns, or (under debugging) referencing location in previously #included header file. The bug would have been easily recognized if anything had indicated the correct location, but the messages weren't especially descriptive. Instead of pasting them in, I'll try attaching the programs as well, this time. See the .c versions & the error messages in the .txt files. I guess I'm supposed to post this, then attach? I'll try it that way.
Created attachment 29643 [details] first offending program The compiler error output is as follows: dlt8.c:7:22: error: expected ',' or ';' before numeric constant
Created attachment 29644 [details] second offending program Compiler error output for this one puts the error in stdio.h: In file included from dlt9.c:2:0: f:\mingw\bin\../lib/gcc/mingw32/4.5.2/../../../../include/stdio.h:641:21: error: expected ',' or ';' before numeric constant
Works on the trunk on x86_64-linux-gnu just fine: dlt8.c:4:25: error: expected ‘,’ or ‘;’ before numeric constant #define SAMPLELONGLONG 123456789012345 ^ dlt8.c:10:90: note: in expansion of macro ‘SAMPLELONGLONG’ "Here we have some user info, wherein we stupidly try to include a numeric constant " SAMPLELONGLONG; ^ apinski@apinskidesktop:~/Downloads$ ~/gcc-228/bin/gcc dlt9.c dlt9.c:4:25: error: expected ‘,’ or ‘;’ before numeric constant #define SAMPLELONGLONG 123456789012345 ^ dlt9.c:10:90: note: in expansion of macro ‘SAMPLELONGLONG’ "Here we have some user info, wherein we stupidly try to include a numeric constant " SAMPLELONGLONG; ^
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599 > > --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-11 18:11:17 UTC --- > No info in bug. > > -- > Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You reported the bug. I entered a complete description, then tried attaching the preprocessor output. It apparently threw away what I'd entered at that point. I've re-entered parts of it & attached more stuff. I guess I don't see how to attach without submitting? -- Dave
As shown in other attachments, for me it generated references to other lines (many lines away in the big program I tried to reduce this to), & if I removed all earlier lines referencing a location in stdio.h ! -- Dave On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599 > > --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-11 18:49:38 UTC --- > Works on the trunk on x86_64-linux-gnu just fine: > dlt8.c:4:25: error: expected ‘,’ or ‘;’ before numeric constant > #define SAMPLELONGLONG 123456789012345 > ^ > dlt8.c:10:90: note: in expansion of macro ‘SAMPLELONGLONG’ > "Here we have some user info, wherein we stupidly try to include a numeric > constant " SAMPLELONGLONG; > > ^ > apinski@apinskidesktop:~/Downloads$ ~/gcc-228/bin/gcc dlt9.c > dlt9.c:4:25: error: expected ‘,’ or ‘;’ before numeric constant > #define SAMPLELONGLONG 123456789012345 > ^ > dlt9.c:10:90: note: in expansion of macro ‘SAMPLELONGLONG’ > "Here we have some user info, wherein we stupidly try to include a numeric > constant " SAMPLELONGLONG; > > ^ > > -- > Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You reported the bug.
I forgot to add when I reentered stuff. This was from MinGW running on Windows XP, but got same error messages on a Linux machine (sent it to someone to check). gcc --version shows this: gcc (GCC) 4.5.2 I don't know how to tell what options the gcc was built with; I did see that your "what we need listed that, but trying to figure it out I came up with nothing. -- Dave
Dave, this bug seems to be fixed in the about to be released GCC 4.8.0
Closing as fixed in mainline then.