This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: warning: multi-line comment (why?)
- To: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at cygnus dot co dot uk>
- Subject: Re: warning: multi-line comment (why?)
- From: Neil Booth <NeilB at earthling dot net>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:53:47 +0100
- Cc: Jamie Lokier <egcs at tantalophile dot demon dot co dot uk>,Jan Dvorak <johnydog at go dot cz>, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc at mediaone dot net>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20000925230543.A28863@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <200009252218.XAA03418@phal.cygnus.co.uk>
Joern Rennecke wrote:-
> > You get diagnostics as reqd by the standard.
> Is that with or without a colomn number?
Ah, now I see what you're getting at. The \\n case reports the
beginning of the in-progress token; missing \n reports the col number.
Not sure it's worth changing; it's not as if the location is in any
doubt. Do you think it's worth the extra overhead to get a correctly
reported column number for unexpected EOF?