On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Sterling Augustine
<saugust...@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Sterling Augustine
>> <saugust...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Index: gcc/c-family/c-pretty-print.h
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- gcc/c-family/c-pretty-print.h (revision 187603)
>>>> +++ gcc/c-family/c-pretty-print.h (working copy)
>>>> @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
>>>> typedef enum
>>>> {
>>>> pp_c_flag_abstract = 1 << 1,
>>>> - pp_c_flag_last_bit = 2
>>>> + pp_c_flag_last_bit = 2,
>>>> + pp_c_flag_gnu_v3 = 4
>>
>> "last bit" should really be last bit. That means the value for
>> pp_c_flags_last_bits
>> should be 1 << 2 with the new addition.
>
> Good catch. There is a single use of pp_c_flag_last_bit in
> cxx-pretty-printer.h to define the first C++ flag like so:
>
> pp_cxx_flag_default_argument = 1 << pp_c_flag_last_bit
>
>
> So shouldn't the enum look like this?
>
> typedef enum
> {
> pp_c_flag_abstract = 1 << 1,
> pp_c_flag_gnu_v3 = 1 << 2,
> pp_c_flag_last_bit = 3
> } pp_c_pretty_print_flags;
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sterling
Yes, you are absolutely right.
-- Gaby
