From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2271 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2005 22:54:19 -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 1901 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2005 22:53:31 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050915225331.1900.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030127145600.9449.rearnsha@arm.com> References: <20030127145600.9449.rearnsha@arm.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug preprocessor/9449] UCNs not recognized in identifiers (c++/c99) X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg01916.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-09-15 22:53 ------- Subject: Re: UCNs not recognized in identifiers (c++/c99) geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:- > > ------- Additional Comments From geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15 22:34 ------- > (In reply to comment #39) > > Another reason why spelling needs preserving (in addition to implementing # > > correctly) is for the constraints on duplicate macro definitions. > > > > #define foo \u00c1 > > #define foo \u00C1 > > > > is invalid (different spelling in replacement), as is > > We discussed this on the list and decided that this was probably a defect in the C standard, since the > Rationale says that the kind of implementation we have now is supposed to be permitted, and jsm said > he'd file a DR. How's that going? I very much doubt this is a defect. Just because it doesn't fit your implementation... Neil. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9449