http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8270
GoWhoopee at yahoo dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |GoWhoopee at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #47 from GoWhoopee at yahoo dot com ---
There is a rule: single line comments are extended by backslash newline.
Ludicrous as it is, this rule is not optional.
Failure to observe this rule by a compiler is criminal: the result is that
lines of code which a correctly written syntax highlighter shows as code that
will be compiled, are not.
This has cost this company several days in time. We write code for the
military: the cost could have been far worse had the unusual behaviour not been
noticed.
Compilers MUST NOT randomly ignore lines of code!
Programmers frequently illustrate code with ASCII art and backslash is a
valuable ASCII art character. To ensure the single-line comment is not extended
and the clarity of the ASCII art remains, a space would be inserted after any
trailing backslash.
ASCII art (or anything attempt at explanation of the code) in comment is NOT
bad coding style (as stated by Atmel technical support).
Any editor or compiler operation that trims spaces from lines MUST NOT trim
spaces all the way back to a backslash because that will change the programmers
intent by creating backslash newline where there was none!
That should be obvious!
GCC isn't alone in missing this crucial point.
Atmel's version of MS Visual Studio offers a
[Tools][Options][Environment][Custom Settings][Remove whitespaces trailing end
of line, while saving the document] which does what it says, silently breaking
code as it does so.
Their tech support said their environment did what it said on the tin and they
couldn't impose themselves on the GCC community, but they could write to the
syntax highlight software company and ask them to break their code too!
Oh, how we laughed...
The solution should be simple: when trimming white-space from the right of a
line of code, don't create backslash newline where it didn't exist before.
Please reconsider and stop gcc from changing our code without our permission.
