Re: fixincludes 2013-05-23

[Bruce Korb <bruce dot korb at gmail dot com>]

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Alexander Ivchenko <aivchenk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> That was my original letter:
>>Hi,
>>
>>Could you please take a look at the attached fixinclude patch
>>that addresses the problem:
>>
>>"  We have test fail for gcc.dg/cpp/trad/include.c on Android. The
>>reason for that is that
>>-ftraditional-cpp is not expected to work on Android due to variadic
>>macro (like #define __builtin_warning(x, y...))
>>in standard headers and traditional preprocessor cannot handle them."
>>
>>is it ok for trunk?
>>
>>thanks,
>>Alexander
>
> So I did ask whether it is ok or not. And then I got:
>
>> Be sure to ask, Ok? in your patch submittals.
>>
>> Ok.

Oops.  Wrong word.  I said, "you didn't ask" and meant to say
"you didn't get approval".  I didn't see the original request because
there was no hint about "fixincludes" in the subject and I was not
on the to/cc line.  So you asked, just not effectively enough for
me to see it and you did _not_ get approval.

Still:

>>  Also, I prefer that the hacks get inserted
>> alphabetically.  So, actually, there are a few small complaints.

>> The patch looks pretty reasonable, but I think someone else
>> should verify the obsolescence.  I also think it should be renamed to
>> something like "obsolete_builtin_warning" because the current
>> name gives no clue about what it really is.
>>
>> /*
>>  *  Old Linux kernel's <compiler.h> header breaks Traditional CPP
>>  */
>> fix = {
>>     hackname  = complier_h_tradcpp;
>>     files     = linux/compiler.h;
>>
>>     select    = "#define __builtin_warning\\(x, y\\.\\.\\.\\) \\(1\\)";
>>     c_fix     = format;
>>     c_fix_arg = "/* __builtin_warning(x, y...) is obsolete */";
>>
>>     test_text = "#define __builtin_warning(x, y...) (1)";
>> };

Please be kind enough to belatedly finish up and we'll (I'll) reapply it.