https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #13 from Alisdair Meredith ---
As this has shipped for two releases now (gcc9 and 10) I recommend closing as
Works As Designed, citing C standard paper N2322 as reason for the change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
Fred, the author of the paper, usually tests a number of compilers. In the
paper referenced from n2322 he mentions a bunch:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1911.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #10 from Alisdair Meredith ---
And double-checking the C++ Standard again, I think I have wording in favor of
my report and contradicting the recommended best practice for the pending C
standard:
[cpp.line]p2 "The line number of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #9 from Alisdair Meredith ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7)
> The following proposal was accepted into C2X last year:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2322.htm
> It seems to me like it's about the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #8 from Alisdair Meredith ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Why not do this:
> static_assert(X == 3 || X == 4);
>
> There that works for both cases.
The code example was intended to the be smallest reproducible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why not do this:
static_assert(X == 3 || X == 4);
There that works for both cases.
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why not do this:
static_assert(X == 3 || X == 4);
There that works for both cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #4 from Alisdair Meredith ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I miss-remembered the issue, the issue was only with preprocessor directives
> inside macro functions (this changed in GCC 3.3 and above really).
>
> But I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
>There is no multiline "macro function" here, there is an invocation of a
>macro, and the invocation spans multiple lines.
I miss-remembered the issue, the issue was only with preprocessor directives
10 matches
Mail list logo
