Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> On 25 September 2015 at 17:14, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>> The caller of do_pragma(), which is destringize_and_run() then detects
>> that pfile->directive_result.type is set, and then puts the tokens of
>> the pragma back into the input stream again. So next time the
On 25 September 2015 at 17:14, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> The caller of do_pragma(), which is destringize_and_run() then detects
> that pfile->directive_result.type is set, and then puts the tokens of
> the pragma back into the input stream again. So next time the FE
> requests more tokens, it's goi
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> Currently, #pragma GCC diagnostic is handled entirely by the FE. This
> has several drawbacks:
>
> * PR c++/53431 - C++ preprocessor ignores #pragma GCC diagnostic: The
> C++ parser lexes (and preprocesses) before handling the pragmas.
>
> * PR 53920 - "gcc -E" does
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> PING^2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02414.html
>
> On 21 August 2015 at 19:41, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> > Any comments on this?
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02414.html
> >
> > I don't see any other way
PING^2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02414.html
On 21 August 2015 at 19:41, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Any comments on this? https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02414.html
>
> I don't see any other way to fix these PRs, but I don't know how to
> keep the pragmas from
Any comments on this? https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02414.html
I don't see any other way to fix these PRs, but I don't know how to
keep the pragmas from being deleted by the preprocessor.
Cheers,
Manuel.
On 29 July 2015 at 00:46, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Currently, #pragma
