https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32073
--- Comment #14 from Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de> --- (In reply to Maciej W. Rozycki from comment #12) > (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #10) > > In which case it would also be impossible to fix anomalies there. In turn > > meaning that hardly any bug in parsing of input can actually be fixed. Not a > > good state to be in. How would you respond to a bug report in such an area > > then? "We know it's broken, but it can't be fixed"? > Where does the notion of using whitespace for argument separation in > macro invocations (as opposed to definitions) come from? It was already in the 1999 sourceware import, so, let's say "forever". The scrubber removes whitespace between tokens of different classes, but retains whitespace between token of same class, which sometimes makes it so that whitespace in macro invocation does or does not separate arguments, the difference visible in e.g.: invoke 1 2 invoke 1 + 2 3 (support invoke is a two-arg macro, both of the above invocations would be correct and pass two args). That's where the confusion comes from, but whitespace always was a argument separator in macro invocations (for better or worse), and is used in the wild :-/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
