This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [cpplib] implement pragma dependancy
- To: Zack Weinberg <zack at wolery dot cumb dot org>
- Subject: Re: [cpplib] implement pragma dependancy
- From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:48:52 +0100
- CC: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: Codesourcery LLC
- References: <3950B4F9.49FD2493@codesourcery.com> <20000621110602.T5412@wolery.cumb.org>
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I like the general idea. Unfortunately I just rewrote
> find_include_file() and friends to fix Jakub's bug with "" vs <>
> includes - so if you can update your patch, after I commit the
> changes, and resubmit, that would be nice.
Oh, dear. Will do.
> I also have two nitpicks and a question for the group at large. The
> word is spelled dependency - three E's, no A. I think the error
> message would look better with a comma between "newer" and any
Yes I agree. Actually I think there should be two separate messages,
a boiler plate one, where there is no trailing text
foo.c:3:58: warning: source "/usr/include/foo.h" is newer
and a just the trailing text version,
foo.c:3:58: warning: rerun fixincludes for "/usr/include/foo.h"
that gives the most flexibility.
> #pragma system_header and your #pragma dependency should be
> #pragma GCC system_header and #pragma GCC dependency, or something
> like that.
Good idea. Modulo the spelling, I take it you're happy with `dependency'.
nathan
--
Dr Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
'But that's a lie.' - 'Yes it is. What's your point?'
nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org