On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 08:32:50AM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > We want to remove the latter but not the former one, and
> > the patch adds the vaopt_padding_tokens counter for it to control
> > how many placemarkers are removed on vaopt_state::END.
> > As can be seen in #c1 and #c2 of the PR,
On 8/17/21 4:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 06:07:57PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
It is unclear if it would be enough
to remove just one or if all padding tokens should be removed.
Anyway, e.g. the previous removal of all padding tokens at the end of
__VA_OPT__ is undesirab
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 06:07:57PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > It is unclear if it would be enough
> > to remove just one or if all padding tokens should be removed.
> > Anyway, e.g. the previous removal of all padding tokens at the end of
> > __VA_OPT__ is undesirable, as it e.g. eats also the
On 7/20/21 5:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
So, besides missing #__VA_OPT__ patch for which I've posted patch last week,
P1042R1 introduced some placemarker changes for __VA_OPT__, most notably
the addition of before "removal of placemarker tokens," rescanning ...
and the
#define H4(X, ...) __V
Hi!
So, besides missing #__VA_OPT__ patch for which I've posted patch last week,
P1042R1 introduced some placemarker changes for __VA_OPT__, most notably
the addition of before "removal of placemarker tokens," rescanning ...
and the
#define H4(X, ...) __VA_OPT__(a X ## X) ## b
H4(, 1) // replaced
