This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug preprocessor/58687] "#line __LINE__ ..." changes subsequent line numbers
- From: "mtewoodbury at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:25:49 +0000
- Subject: [Bug preprocessor/58687] "#line __LINE__ ..." changes subsequent line numbers
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-58687-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
--- Comment #35 from Max TenEyck Woodbury <mtewoodbury at gmail dot com> ---
True, none of the specifically listed maintainers have commented on
this version of the patch. There are three people listed and a
general reference to all C and C++ front end maintainers. It is
possible that they are not even aware of this discussion.
You are -not- listed specifically as a libcpp maintainer, only as a
general C front end maintainer specializing in soft-fp, i18n,
documentation and option handling. On the other hand your name does
appear in the libcpp ChangeLog and I presume jsm28 is your committer
ID. Your code looks good in general.
I do appreciate your helping me clarify my arguments. I have indeed
been sloppy in my phrasing on more than one occasion. On the other
hand, you have -not- addressed the main reason for adding this change:
this alternate implementation of #line __LINE__ is useful while the
current implementation is not. As noted in an earlier comment, it
could -help- address at least two other issues currently being
discussed in other reports.
On 10/26/17, joseph at codesourcery dot com <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
>
> --- Comment #34 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery
> dot com> ---
> None of the other preprocessor maintainers have commented on this bug in
> the past four years to disagree with my view of the natural identification
> of the current line for this __LINE__ token. Unless any comment soon I
> think we can take there to be consensus on my interpretation, i.e. that
> this is INVALID and the existing interpretation is the most appropriate
> one.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.