This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add #pragma message ... to gcc/g++
- From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- To: Simon Baldwin <simonb at google dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:27:05 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add #pragma message ... to gcc/g++
- References: <20080718141818.B122A3FE797@localhost>
Hello Simon,
* Simon Baldwin wrote on Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 04:18:18PM CEST:
> Okay for trunk? Or, let the debate commence...
FWIW, I cannot approve it, so here's a couple of observations.
> Tested and confirmed with gcc and g++ build, bootstrap, and testsuite.
Did you run 'make info dvi' in gcc/, did the doc changes introduce a
very long line in the PDF?
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> 2008-07-18 Simon Baldwin <simonb@google.com>
>
> * c-pragma.c (handle_pragma_message): New function.
> * (init_pragma): Register handle_pragma_message.
Please drop the '* ' in this line (that's only for listing file names),
and add a line for the doc/extend.texi changes.
> *** gcc-message_orig/gcc/c-pragma.c Thu Jul 17 13:05:49 2008
> --- gcc-message/gcc/c-pragma.c Fri Jul 18 10:03:47 2008
> + static void
> + handle_pragma_message (cpp_reader *ARG_UNUSED(dummy))
Comment before function needed?
> + {
> + enum cpp_ttype token;
> + tree x, message = 0;
> +
> + token = pragma_lex (&x);
> + if (token == CPP_OPEN_PAREN)
> + {
> + token = pragma_lex (&x);
> + if (token == CPP_STRING)
> + message = x;
> + else
> + GCC_BAD ("expected a string after %<#pragma message%>");
> + if (pragma_lex (&x) != CPP_CLOSE_PAREN)
> + GCC_BAD ("malformed %<#pragma message%> - ignored");
I think the usual punctuation would be to drop the '- ' or to replace it
with a comma.
Is the malformed pragma really ignored? Is that tested?
> + }
> + else if (token == CPP_STRING)
> + message = x;
> + else
> + GCC_BAD ("expected a string after %<#pragma message%>");
Cheers,
Ralf