This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

RE: PR cpp/33907 Empty macro definitions not considered equal

From: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
To: "'Joseph S. Myers'" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: 'Manuel Lopez-Ibanez' <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>, "'GCC Patches'" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:16:45 -0000
Subject: RE: PR cpp/33907 Empty macro definitions not considered equal
References: <6c33472e0711280858w6a310f76w410f04a1631294d7@mail.gmail.com> <00c901c831e2$6e4e1500$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711282302440.28670@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

On 28 November 2007 23:04, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Dave Korn wrote:
> 
>> "The standard (6.10.3) mandates this diagnostic when there is a mismatch in
> 
> Please, no subclause numbers in comments without stating the standard
> version being referred to.  I think we have references to all of C89, C90
> and C99 in comments in different places (without disambiguation) at
> present.

  Makes sense to me.  In that case, I suggest just

" The C and C++ standards mandate ..."

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

References:
- PR cpp/33907 Empty macro definitions not considered equal
  - From: Manuel López-Ibáñez
- RE: PR cpp/33907 Empty macro definitions not considered equal
  - From: Dave Korn
- RE: PR cpp/33907 Empty macro definitions not considered equal
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

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