https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
--- Comment #35 from Max TenEyck Woodbury <mtewoodbury at gmail dot com> --- True, none of the specifically listed maintainers have commented on this version of the patch. There are three people listed and a general reference to all C and C++ front end maintainers. It is possible that they are not even aware of this discussion. You are -not- listed specifically as a libcpp maintainer, only as a general C front end maintainer specializing in soft-fp, i18n, documentation and option handling. On the other hand your name does appear in the libcpp ChangeLog and I presume jsm28 is your committer ID. Your code looks good in general. I do appreciate your helping me clarify my arguments. I have indeed been sloppy in my phrasing on more than one occasion. On the other hand, you have -not- addressed the main reason for adding this change: this alternate implementation of #line __LINE__ is useful while the current implementation is not. As noted in an earlier comment, it could -help- address at least two other issues currently being discussed in other reports. On 10/26/17, joseph at codesourcery dot com <[email protected]> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687 > > --- Comment #34 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery > dot com> --- > None of the other preprocessor maintainers have commented on this bug in > the past four years to disagree with my view of the natural identification > of the current line for this __LINE__ token. Unless any comment soon I > think we can take there to be consensus on my interpretation, i.e. that > this is INVALID and the existing interpretation is the most appropriate > one. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug.
