Per Bothner wrote:- > Opinions on how to handle this bug? > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21250 > > This came up because we give <built-in> declarations > line 0, but used line 1 in a different date structure. > I fixed the code to consistently use line 0, which is > needed for the --enable-mapped-location unification. > > However, we end up with preprocessor output like this: > > # 1 "any-file" > # 0 "<built-in>" > # 1 "<command line>" > # 1 "any-file" > > Some assemblers complain about line number 0. This is especially > an issue for people who use cpp to preprocessor assembler, which > of course we don't really support. > > My suggested solution: suppress the output of <built-in>, so > we get: > # 1 "any-file" > # 1 "<command line>" > # 1 "any-file" > > There should never be anything following <built-in>, so it's useless
Well, there is with -d output dumping. > as well as confusing. Also, if we compile multiple files at once (or > use a compile server), then logically the <built-in> declaration > *precede* all the actual code, which suggests that if <built-in> is > output it should be the *first* line. I wanted it to be the first line, but like you say it breaks too much including GCC's own -fpreprocessed. > But that would break too much > code. Simplest and cleanest solution: Just get rid of the <built-in> > line in pre-processor output. This might break some tools that look > at cpp output, but it seems unlikely. Agreed - we never guarantee the form of -E anyway. Neil.
