This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH] Add new cpp predef macro __SAFE_FILE__ to improve compile-time assertions.
- From: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- To: <tromey at redhat dot com>, "'Ian Lance Taylor'" <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: "'Basile STARYNKEVITCH'" <basile at starynkevitch dot net>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <aaw at google dot com>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 14:11:54 +0100
- Subject: RE: [PATCH] Add new cpp predef macro __SAFE_FILE__ to improve compile-time assertions.
- References: <007d01c784dd$e00102f0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <20070424172213.GB6895@redhat.com> <00fe01c78695$dbd5f5f0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <20070424195330.GA25484@ours.starynkevitch.net> <m3mz0xfs3l.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <m3zm4lznuq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
On 03 May 2007 20:52, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>
> Ian> Ollie Wild has a patch to implement __COUNTER__.
> Ian> I believe it is waiting on approval of -fdirectives-only.
> Ian> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg02178.html
> Ian> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00786.html
> Ian> Ollie, please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> FWIW
Umm, Tom, you're the maintainer: FWIW is that it's your call!
> I prefer __COUNTER__ over __SAFE_FILE__, for the reason that
> there is prior art in the MS compiler.
>
> The reason I think this is an either-or situation is that, by my
> reading of the thread, the remaining rationale for __SAFE_FILE__ is
> for generating unique symbols; but __COUNTER__ serves that just as
> well.
Ok, would you care to reply with the reviewmail tag just to tidy up the
patch tracker and confirm that's a formal rather than informal patch
rejection? Ta!
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....