jakubjelinek wrote: @ThePhD @AaronBallman @cor3ntin Joseph Myers raised an interesting question whether the tokens in embed-parameter-sequence are macro expanded or not. Consider ```c #define FILE "/etc/passwd" #define LIMIT limit(1) #define THIS , 1, 2, 3 #define PRE prefix (42, ONE #embed FILE LIMIT suffix(THIS) PRE ) TWO #embed "/etc/passwd" LIMIT suffix(THIS) PRE ) THREE #define limit prefix #embed "/etc/passwd" limit (4) suffix (THIS) ```
The first #embed is I hope clear in that it is the #embed pp-tokens new-line case where everything gets macro expanded. The second case is less clear, the filename part matches the " q-char-sequence " case, but LIMIT suffix(THIS) PRE ) is not valid embed-parameter-sequence, so shouldn't it be expanded too? And the last case by strict reading shouldn't be macro expanded because it is valid embed-parameter-sequence, still both the the.phd branch and clang trunk and also my GCC patchset handle it as prefix (4) suffix(, 1, 2, 3). Would in that reading #embed "/etc/passwd" LIMIT suffix(THIS) be valid too and thus not macro expanded and thus later invalid? And, if embed-parameter-sequence tokens are macro expanded only sometimes, what should happen say with #define ARG 2) if_empty (1 #embed "file" limit (ARG) ? On ```c #define A "/etc/passwd" limit (1) ) + (0 #if __has_embed (A) int i; #endif ``` also all 3 compilers agree and happily use the closing ) from the macro to use the ) from the macro expansion for the closing ) of __has_embed and continue through to the rest of the expression. Or is __has_embed supposed to be always macro expanded? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95802 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
