On 7/31/25 1:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 11:04:56AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
If the current backup handling is doing the wrong thing in this case, it
seems better to fix it rather than add more earlier in the function. Would
it be enough to move the existing CPP_PRAGMA
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 11:04:56AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> If the current backup handling is doing the wrong thing in this case, it
> seems better to fix it rather than add more earlier in the function. Would
> it be enough to move the existing CPP_PRAGMA_EOL handling into the
> not_module bl
On 6/27/25 5:54 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
My changes for "Module Declarations Shouldn’t be Macros" paper broke
the following testcase. The backup handling intentionally tries to
drop CPP_PRAGMA_EOL token if things go wrong, which is desirable for the
case where we haven't committed to the mo
Hi!
My changes for "Module Declarations Shouldn’t be Macros" paper broke
the following testcase. The backup handling intentionally tries to
drop CPP_PRAGMA_EOL token if things go wrong, which is desirable for the
case where we haven't committed to the module preprocessing directive
(i.e. changed
