Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes: > Here's the write-up of what I was seeing earlier today for my own record. > > #if 1 > #elif > #endif > > gives "0:2(1): preprocessor warning: ignoring illegal #elif without > expression". gcc rejects it, but glcpp just warns since #if is true > and it doesn't need to evaluate #elif's nonexistent expression.
Ah, OK. This is the case I wasn't thinking through clearly when we looked at the code. But that makes sense now, and jibes with what I recall doing. Are you OK with a warning in this case? Or would you prefer it to be silent? > Switching #if 1 to #if 0 correctly gives "0:2(1): preprocessor error: > #elif with no expression". Good. That one looked correct from the code. > Due to how skipping works, we have to pass the #elif tokens to the > parser, leading to situations like: > > #if 0 > # if 1 > # elif > # endif > #endif > > which still gives the warning message. Right. And this is the kind of thing (a big "#if 0" eliminating a bunch of junk) I was thinking about yesterday. It seems like it would be nice to allow any kind of junk within a "#if 0" block and have it all just silently ignored, (since the programmer is intentionally hiding all of this from the compiler). But of course, it's not that simple, since the compiler does have to look to find the correct, matching #endif statement. So the compiler is well within reason to insist that things like #elif are well formed. Given all of the above, I'd be inclined to leave the warning in place. What do you think? It is a bit funny that gcc raises an error in that first case and is silent in this last one. Would it be worth it to try to match that behavior? -Carl
pgpikmmcspmzX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
