[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b
From: |
Alexandre Oliva |
Subject: |
Re: FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b |
Date: |
02 May 2001 19:48:24 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090002 (Oort Gnus v0.02) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) |
On May 2, 2001, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> info.c:8:1: directives may not be used inside a macro argument
> info.c:8:1: unterminated argument list invoking macro "printf"
> Of course, the original line numbers were different.
> Using /usr/bin/gcc:
> Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.4/specs
> gcc version 2.95.4 20010319 (Debian prerelease)
> it compiled just fine.
The difference is more likely to be in glibc headers, not in GCC.
AFAIK, it could never cope with preprocessor directives within macro
expansions.
> If the definition of printf above (extracted from glibc's stdio.h)
> is valid, then I suppose this is a problem with gcc.
The problem is in the program that assumes any C standard function is
not implemented as a macro. The C Standard explicitly allows a number
of functions to be implemented as preprocessor macros, and it doesn't
allow preprocessor directives within macro expansions.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer address@hidden, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp address@hidden, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
- FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b, Jim Meyering, 2001/05/02
- Re: FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b, Ben Collins, 2001/05/02
- Re: FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b, Neil Booth, 2001/05/02
- Re: FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b, Zack Weinberg, 2001/05/02
- Re: FYI, recent gcc vs. glibc's `#define printf(...' vs texinfo-4.0b,
Alexandre Oliva <=