This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@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]

Preprocessor



Hello, 

I solved my problem with the re_max_failures by compiling a static version of
gcc 2.95.0 without libstdc++ and used it to compile a shared version of the
recent snapshot. 
But I have a few packages who complain that the following construction is not
valid.
printf("%*s", 
#ifdef ARGUMENT
	16,
#else
	8,
#endif
	"");

However if the guys wrote it this way(for example in the gnu binutils) then
it's because it was valid. 
Is there a change in the pre 3.0 version of gcc that makes this stuctor illegal
now?
Or is there just on of my packages that is not up-to-date and everything's all
right with the preprocessor?


Jean-Pierre

-- 
Jean-Pierre Schwickerath - Powered by GNU/LinuX!
E-Mail: email@schwicky.net - http://schwicky.net
PGP Key ID: 0x48C39212 - AIM: Schwicky - ICQ's UIN: 4690141

Nothing's impossible... Everything is relative!


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