> > > Fortunately, standard cpp
> > > seems to be enough, but if we were to require GNU cpp, what
> > > would be the (real) problem???
> >
> > It is not a real problem but I prefer to minmize the depencies
> > whenever possible. You have heard the story about
> > "The straw that broke the {ass,donkey,mule}'s back", haven't you?
>
> OK, I did not say it explicitly, but the discussion was a matter of
> principle only since standard cpp works. I agree with you
> about unnecessary
> deps. But to my mind, if a tools helps wine be better
> (cleaner, faster,
> etc), I opt to use it rather than complain about the
> dependency. I was just
> curios about your stand on this matter.
Well, there is not only the matter of a dependency.
Even though one important thing about Unix is
"plumbing" a lot of simple tools, it is not always
goods to do so.
In this case with cpp and wrc, plumbing them together
makes the error messages more cryptic which is not
good.
> > Anyway, I have do some experimentation and I found out that
> > this simple patch implements a pre wrc call to the C preprocessor.
> > Works with both Solaris C/CPP and GNU C/CPP.
>
> That's good news -- let's use that then and make wrc smaller,
> and faster.
I am not sure that stripping out the preprocessing code is a good idea.
I see it more as temporary solution until wrc has implemented better
preprocessor handling. As I said plumbing two tools together
often gives more cryptic error messages. That is the reason
why many C compilers and code analysis tools handles preprocessor
directive by itself rather than using an external tool.
IMHO wrc should do so as well.
The patch is more a proof of concept, I am not suggesting
that is should be applied, eventhough Alexandre is of course
welcome to do so if he so whishes.
