Artem Shinkarov writes:
> So my idea is to create just a light version of cpp binary. I'm not
> saying that we need to replace an existing approach of preprocessing
> used in gcc (cpp is basically "gcc -E"). I'm just saying that it could
> be a nice thing to have.
>
> I am ready to do that in ter
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:45:43 +0100
Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>
> Yes, you are right the goals are of course separable but my concern is
> the following. All that I want to implement is a different behaviour
> for handling conditional an macros. So basically all the modifications
> are on the side of
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Artem Shinkarov writes:
>
>> That is why now I want to use a gcc code-base for solving the same
>> task. And the main problem for me at the moment is to build a cpp
>> binary which would be able to handle options for preprocessor but
>> w
Artem Shinkarov writes:
> That is why now I want to use a gcc code-base for solving the same
> task. And the main problem for me at the moment is to build a cpp
> binary which would be able to handle options for preprocessor but
> which would not pull so many code from middleend and backend. In o
