From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21499 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2005 07:10:35 -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 21475 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2005 07:10:32 -0000 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 07:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20051012071032.21474.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug preprocessor/21250] [4.1 Regression] line number 0 for causes GAS to complain In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "per at bothner dot com" X-SW-Source: 2005-10/txt/msg01483.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #9 from per at bothner dot com 2005-10-12 07:10 ------- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] line number 0 for causes GAS to complain ppluzhnikov at charter dot net wrote: > May I repeat my question: > What is the problem of emitting '#1 ' anyway? It's certainly better than emitting '#0 ', but is there any reason for emitting either? > --- gcc/c-opts.c.orig 2005-07-19 05:09:31.000000000 -0700 > +++ gcc/c-opts.c 2005-10-11 22:57:34.000000000 -0700 > @@ -1309,7 +1309,7 @@ > > cb_file_change (parse_in, > linemap_add (&line_table, LC_RENAME, 0, > - _(""), 0)); > + _(""), 1)); > > cpp_init_builtins (parse_in, flag_hosted); > c_cpp_builtins (parse_in); See my rationale/discussion for the orginal patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02132.html There is eisting code that assumes that builtins have line number 0. Note this is *internally* - one option is to translate internal line number 0 to line number 1 on output. But I think the cleaner solution is to just supress the '#' lines for . But people think it is important to keep the '#1 ' lines, for compatibility, I can convinced. I just think they're pointless. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21250