From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21180 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2005 23:59:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21102 invoked by uid 48); 28 Apr 2005 23:59:13 -0000 Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050428235913.21101.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "bothner at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050427133010.21250.segher@kernel.crashing.org> References: <20050427133010.21250.segher@kernel.crashing.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug preprocessor/21250] [4.1 Regression] line number 0 for causes GAS to complain X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg04025.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From bothner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-28 23:59 ------- Re comment #2: I don't believe the text you quoted from the C standard is relevant. is not a "source file". While the C standard isn't directly relevant to Gas, a relevant issue is what the C standard says of #line directives: Should a C compiler complain if it sees a line number zero in a #line directive? Note this is directly answered by your quotation. But rather than argue standards, my inclination would be to use zero as the pseudo-line-number of declarations, but suppress the output of the # 0 in preprocessor output. This will have to be discussed on the gcc/gcc-patches mailing list (after I get back home). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21250