On 04/26/2018 01:08 PM, Josh de Kock wrote:
> On 2018/04/26 12:44, JonY via Mingw-w64-public wrote:
>> On 04/25/2018 07:47 PM, Josh de Kock wrote:
>>> ---
>>> mingw-w64-headers/crt/_mingw.h.in | 4 ++++
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>
>> Can you show a test case where it fails without this patch?
>>
>
> user@pc:~$ cat t.rc
> #include <winver.h>
> user@pc:~$ x86_64-w64-mingw32-clang -xc -E -P -DRC_INVOKED t.rc | sed
> '/^$/d'
> #pragma pack(push,_CRT_PACKING)
> typedef __builtin_va_list __gnuc_va_list;
> typedef __gnuc_va_list va_list;
> #pragma pack(pop)
> void __attribute__((__cdecl__)) __debugbreak(void);
> extern __inline__ __attribute__((__always_inline__,__gnu_inline__)) void
> __attribute__((__cdecl__)) __debugbreak(void)
> {
> __asm__ __volatile__("int {$}3":);
> }
> const char *__mingw_get_crt_info (void);
> user@pc:~$
>
> Using a sufficiently pendantic resource compiler, it cannot handle C
> constructs. RC_INVOKED should guard for this. With this patch no output
> is produced for the above test file. Though it seems there are a few
> other cases where C is not guarded by RC_INVOKED (such as windows.h),
> but they seem minimal. Would a patch guarding more thoroughly be
> accepted? The current behaviour seems to intend to guard all C with
> RC_INVOKED but due to the resource compilers mostly being rather lax, it
> is difficult to notice the few cases where they are not.
> Patch OK then.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
