OK, thanks.
Jason
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 07:33:19PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:29:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Hmm, that logic is difficult to follow. It needs comments at least
> > explaining last_seen_* and why the loop in the suffix handling keeps
> > going after we change
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:29:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Hmm, that logic is difficult to follow. It needs comments at least
> explaining last_seen_* and why the loop in the suffix handling keeps
> going after we change the phase to RAW_STR.
>
> Maybe instead of tracking last_seen_* BUFF_A
Hmm, that logic is difficult to follow. It needs comments at least
explaining last_seen_* and why the loop in the suffix handling keeps
going after we change the phase to RAW_STR.
Maybe instead of tracking last_seen_* BUFF_APPEND could copy into a
short local char array as well as the string
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 01:32:58AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> With this make check RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=raw-string* passes, but perhaps
> I'll need to play with gcov and add some new testcases, e.g. ones
> I have in mind are R"??(??)??"; which wouldn't work correctly if we didn't
> stop consuming
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 02:22:56AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> It seems undesirable to go from one to four separate copies of the
> note-handling code. Could we instead handle the different states of
> prefix, body and suffix parsing in local variables and just have one
> loop over the character
It seems undesirable to go from one to four separate copies of the
note-handling code. Could we instead handle the different states of
prefix, body and suffix parsing in local variables and just have one
loop over the characters/notes in the input?
Jason
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 06:28:46PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> lex_raw_string right now only undoes phase {1,2} transformations in between
> R"delim( and )delim", while it should undo them everywhere between R" and
> the final ". The following patch implements that, and adds testsuite
> coverage
