From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IeenB-0004f0-Dl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:40:09 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IeenA-0004e4-12 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:40:08 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ieen9-0004dw-SS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:40:07 -0400 Received: from nan.false.org ([208.75.86.248]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ieen9-0003SZ-O1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:40:07 -0400 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3507A982E5 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2007 22:40:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A5F982DF for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2007 22:40:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ieen6-0007d5-Q9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:40:04 -0400 Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:40:04 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] PPC build errors in CVS Message-ID: <20071007224004.GA29260@caradoc.them.org> References: <47094A70.9080800@earthlink.net> <1191793552.9976.53.camel@rapid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1191793552.9976.53.camel@rapid> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:45:51PM +0200, J. Mayer wrote: > I also took a look in C 99 specification and I saw no restriction on > writing: > do_this(a, > #ifdef _this_is_defined > b, > #else > c, > #endif > d); > when do_this() is defined as a macro. > > May I suggest you to use a C99 compliant compiler ? > I don't feel like making my code less readable just because some use > buggy compilers. (but if someone tells me what in the ISO C > specification, that I would have missed, explicitelly forbids this). I'm pretty sure that it was either forbidden or unspecified, at least in C89. I didn't check C99. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1999-07n/msg00243.html > ISO says in 6.8.3 (Macro replacement): "If there are sequences of > preprocessing tokens within the list of arguments that would otherwise > act as preprocessing directives, the behavior is undefined." GCC did not support it until here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-02/msg01874.html -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery