This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: A##B a preprocessing token?

To: Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe dot com>
Subject: Re: A##B a preprocessing token?
From: Martin Sebor <sebor at roguewave dot com>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 11:10:14 -0700
CC: Jiri Kolafa <jiri at icpf dot cas dot cz>, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
Organization: Rogue Wave Software, Inc.
References: <Pine.OSF.4.10.10111061539040.23366-100000@omega> <20011106174042.B20335@alinoe.com>

Carlo Wood wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 04:26:07PM +0100, Jiri Kolafa wrote:
> > I have used for years a construct that translates
> >   loop (i,from,to)
> > into
> >   for (i=from; i<to; i++)
> > and at the same time
> >   loop (i,from,=to)
> > into
> >   for (i=from; i<=to; i++)
> 
> This doesn't seem a good reason to remove the warning:
> It is an ugly way of programming and deserves a
> warning imho (disclaimer: I am not a gcc developer).

I don't think it's up to the compiler to judge the aesthetics of
code ;-) I believe what Jiri is looking for is a more technical
justification for the warning which might be 6.8.3.3 of C89 and
6.10.3.3, p3 of C99:

    ...If the result is not a valid preprocessing token, the
    behavior is undefined...

Regards
Martin

References:
- A##B a preprocessing token?
  - From: Jiri Kolafa
- Re: A##B a preprocessing token?
  - From: Carlo Wood

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]