--- Comment #18 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-30 21:10 ---
The program is invalid, there is no point in getting into special
cased corner cases. If you happen to have those macros in the same program
from real world applications, you probably should be watching for
bigger issu
--- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-27 13:57 ---
Can someone suggest a better comment for this?
/* Since this diagnostic is mandated by the standard, with -pedantic we
diagnose
different parameters spellings even if the macro expansion has no tokens.
*/
Th
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-11-27 09:10 ---
Subject: Re: Empty macro definitions not considered
equal
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-26 17:47 ---
> (In reply to comment
--- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-26 17:47 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
>
> I guess you are not explaining it wrong, but the situation is
> extremely confusing:
>
Oh, I fully agree on that. But it is exactly the same situation that was there
pre-4.3 for the C++
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-11-26 13:15 ---
Subject: Re: Empty macro definitions not considered
equal
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-26 13:03 ---
> (In reply to comment
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-26 13:03 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I see. But sth changed in the cpp defaults for C++ in 4.3 as things
> that were previously warnings (with 4.2) are now errors (with 4.3), such
> as this one or the macro re-definition.
>
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-11-26 12:44
---
Subject: Re: Empty macro definitions not considered
equal
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> I see. But sth changed in the cpp defaults for C++ in 4.3 as things
> that were previously warni
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-11-26 09:56 ---
Subject: Re: Empty macro definitions not considered
equal
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-25 22:59 ---
> (In reply to comment
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-25 22:59 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
>
> Tom can probably do this. But I belive the patch will not work,
> as CPP_PEDANTIC is set to true by the C++ frontend now.
BTW, the patch works for the revision I diffed against. The test
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-25 22:56 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
>
> But C++ has -pedantic as default as well ;)
>
How you reached to that conclusion?
>
> Tom can probably do this. But I belive the patch will not work,
> as CPP_PEDANTIC is set to true b
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-11-25 22:29 ---
Subject: Re: Empty macro definitions not considered
equal
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-25 22:23 ---
> (In reply to comment #
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-25 22:23 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
>
> But yes, there's probably nothing else than to close this bug.
>
Well you could make the error depend on the pedantic flag. This is a recurrent
confusion: C++ does not enable pedantic-err
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-11-25 21:34 ---
Subject: Re: Empty macro definitions not considered
equal
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-25 21:11
> ---
> Given that this
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-25 21:11 ---
Given that this is a constraint, my first inclination is to close the bug
report.
Richard, what motivated this PR?
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-10-26 14:45 ---
Subject: Re: New: Empty macro definitions not
considered equal
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> #define A(a)
> #define A(b)
>
> g++-4.3 -S t.C
> t.C:2:1: error: "A" redefined
> t.C:
--- Comment #3 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-10-26 13:55 ---
The difference is that it is a constraint. You must diagnose it at least in
pedantic mode.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33907
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-26 13:46 ---
I know - I should have made this an enhancement request. Certainly there
will be no observable difference for empty replacement lists, no?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-10-26 13:44 ---
The standard requires the spelling of parameters to be the same even if the
replacement list is empty.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33907
19 matches
Mail list logo
