Your message dated 12 Aug 2003 10:30:21 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#205050: cpp-3.3: does not stringify macros
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Aug 2003 08:05:27 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 12 03:05:23 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from staff.cs.usyd.edu.au [129.78.8.1]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19mU9j-0005GH-00; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:05:23 -0500
Received: from pc-g4-11.cs.usyd.edu.au. by staff.cs.usyd.edu.au.; Tue, 12 Aug
2003 18:05:17 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="EUC-JP"
From: Chris Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: cpp-3.3: does not stringify macros
Bcc: Chris Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.20
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:05:17 +1000
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_20,HAS_PACKAGE
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: cpp-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.1-0pre0
Severity: important
Given the following sample:
---BEGIN---
#define FOO 42
"foo" #FOO "blah"
---END---
A correct cpp should output the last line as:
"foo" "23" "blah"
However, GNU cpp is producing:
"blah" #23 "foo"
Refer to the gcc cpp documtation:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3/cpp/Stringification.html#Stringification
This bug also seems to affect gcc-3.3 on Solaris 2.6, so it could possibly be
upstream.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux pc-g4-11 2.4.21 #1 Wed Jun 18 18:41:11 EST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=en_AU, LC_CTYPE=ja_JP.eucJP
Versions of packages cpp-3.3 depends on:
ii gcc-3.3-base 1:3.3.1-0pre0 The GNU Compiler Collection (base
ii libc6 2.3.1-16 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
-- no debconf information
---
Received: (at 205050-done) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Aug 2003 08:30:26 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 12 03:30:24 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mx02.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.12]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19mUXv-0001TF-00; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:30:23 -0500
Received: from juist (semeai.Informatik.Uni-Tuebingen.De [134.2.15.66])
by mx02.uni-tuebingen.de (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h7C8UM8l018809
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:30:22 +0200
Received: from falk by juist with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 19mUXt-AM-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:30:21 +0200
X-Face: "iUeUu$b*W_"w?tV83Y3*r:`rh&dRv}$YnZ3,LVeCZSYVuf[Gpo*5%_=/\_!gc_,SS}[~xZ
wY77I-M)xHIx:2f56g%/`SOw"Dx%4Xq0&f\Tj~>|QR|vGlU}TBYhiG(K:2
From: Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Aug 2003 10:30:21 +0200
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lines: 16
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.5 (cabbage)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter 1.0.4; AVE 6.21.0.0; VDF 6.21.0.10
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.3 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_20,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,
REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA
autolearn=ham version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Chris Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ---BEGIN---
> #define FOO 42
>
> "foo" #FOO "blah"
> ---END---
>
> A correct cpp should output the last line as:
>
> "foo" "23" "blah"
No, it shouldn't. Stringification only affects macro definitions.
--
Falk
