From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Dall To: ian@cygnus.com Cc: devans@cygnus.com, gas2@cygnus.com Subject: Re: ANSI strings, comment style, ... Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:43:00 -0000 Message-id: <199711050040.LAA07511@hfrd015.dsto.defence.gov.au> References: <199711042338.PAA03967@canuck.cygnus.com> <199711042346.SAA24118@subrogation.cygnus.com> <199711042346.SAA24118@subrogation.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1997/msg00025.html Ian Lance Taylor writes: > Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:38:12 -0800 > From: Doug Evans > You're using ANSI C facilities to stop strings from running past > 80 columns. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe > that's a no-no. [Is it written down somewhere what, if any, > of ANSI C facilities one can use for GAS? Should we set a timeframe for > when we'll start allowing such things?] > gas and the binutils are, of course, a special case, because they may > be required to bootstrap the compiler. My inclination is to never > permit ANSI C features. To be honest I was not sure this was new in ANSI. We are not talking about cpp "#" and "##" operations. What I think we are talking about is writing: printf("A very long string. Warning: unacceptable argument to %s instruction", insn); as printf("A very long string." "Warning: unacceptable argument to %s instruction\n", insn); If this is not acceptable, what is the preferred way to do this? I'd sooner not make it two printf's and I think printf("A very long string.\ Warning: unacceptable argument to %s instruction\n", insn); Is almost as ugly as just letting the line wrap. Ian