From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-433095-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6662 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2013 19:43:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6622 invoked by uid 48); 30 Oct 2013 19:43:16 -0000
From: "mtewoodbury at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug preprocessor/58687] "#line __LINE__ ..." changes subsequent line numbers
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:43:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: preprocessor
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mtewoodbury at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-58687-4-u5Zky8Atsy@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-58687-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-58687-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg02239.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687

--- Comment #13 from Max TenEyck Woodbury <mtewoodbury at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to joseph@codesourcery.com from comment #12)
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, mtewoodbury at gmail dot com wrote:
> 
>> Thank you, I will look info all of that.  My own resources have limits; when
>> it comes to testing generated code on many architectures, I will definitely
>> need such resources.
> 
> A fix for this particular bug should only need testing on one 
> architecture.  It's not like changes to the register allocator that are 
> likely to have architecture-specific issues.

Yes.  'make -w -k check' on the base configuration is still in progress. 
There's enough stuff wrong with the base that I need a log to check against. 
Using the compile farm here would add a queuing delay, slowing the process
further.

Oh, and could you mark this bug as either 'confirmed' or 'in-progress'?

I do have another bug (58884) that will need those resources if I am the one
that tackles fixing it...

Later...