Artem Shinkarov writes:
> So my idea is to create just a light version of cpp binary. I'm not
> saying that we need to replace an existing approach of preprocessing
> used in gcc (cpp is basically "gcc -E"). I'm just saying that it could
> be a nice thing to have.
>
> I am ready to do that in ter
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:45:43 +0100
Artem Shinkarov wrote:
>
> Yes, you are right the goals are of course separable but my concern is
> the following. All that I want to implement is a different behaviour
> for handling conditional an macros. So basically all the modifications
> are on the side of
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Artem Shinkarov writes:
>
>> That is why now I want to use a gcc code-base for solving the same
>> task. And the main problem for me at the moment is to build a cpp
>> binary which would be able to handle options for preprocessor but
>> w
Artem Shinkarov writes:
> That is why now I want to use a gcc code-base for solving the same
> task. And the main problem for me at the moment is to build a cpp
> binary which would be able to handle options for preprocessor but
> which would not pull so many code from middleend and backend. In o
Hi
I am working on a tool for building all the possible variants of C
code form the unpreprocessed file in order to perform an analysis on
those files proving some sort of correctness. The idea is to make sure
that any combination of preprocessor flags would produce a correct (in
terms of some too
