On 10/20/11, Gabriel Charette gcharet...@gmail.com wrote:
I just thought about something..
Earlier I said that ALL line_table issues were resolved after this
patch (as it ignores the re-included headers that were guarded, as the
non-pph compiler does naturally).
One problem remains however,
I just thought about something..
Earlier I said that ALL line_table issues were resolved after this
patch (as it ignores the re-included headers that were guarded, as the
non-pph compiler does naturally).
One problem remains however, I'm pretty sure that re-included
non-pph'ed header's
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 20:27, Gabriel Charette gcharet...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I understand that.
But when the second 2.pph is skipped when reading foo.pph, the reading
of its line_table is also skipped (as foo.pph doesn't contain the
line_table information for 2.h, 2.pph does and adds it
On 11-10-13 17:55 , Gabriel Charette wrote:
I'm not sure exactly how you skip headers already parsed now (we
didn't used to when I wrote this code and that was the only problem
remaining in the line_table (i.e. duplicate entries for guarded
headers in the non-pph compile)), but couldn't you
Yes, I understand that.
But when the second 2.pph is skipped when reading foo.pph, the reading
of its line_table is also skipped (as foo.pph doesn't contain the
line_table information for 2.h, 2.pph does and adds it when its
included as a child, but if it's skipped, the line_table info for 2.h
Just looked at the line_table related sections, but see comments below:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
Currently, the consistency check done on pre-processor symbols is
triggering on symbols that are not really problematic (e.g., symbols
used for
Currently, the consistency check done on pre-processor symbols is
triggering on symbols that are not really problematic (e.g., symbols
used for double-include guards).
The problem is that in the testsuite, we are refusing to process PPH
images that fail that test, which means we don't get to
