public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2020-08-27 20:46 ` bmburstein at gmail dot com
2022-02-15 13:17 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: bmburstein at gmail dot com @ 2020-08-27 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
Baruch Burstein <bmburstein at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bmburstein at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from Baruch Burstein <bmburstein at gmail dot com> ---
This pragma is used by VSCode, too, which is commonly used with gcc as a
compiler.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-08-27 20:46 ` [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio bmburstein at gmail dot com
@ 2022-02-15 13:17 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-15 13:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-02-15 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |easyhack
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The docs raise some questions.
They say that a #pragma region must be ended by a #pragma endregion. Should the
compiler check that and issue a diagnostic otherwise?
What is the form of the optional "name" that follows #pragma region?
What if #pragma endregion is followed by preprocessor tokens, not just a
comment?
If we don't care about validating anything, it's easy to make GCC completely
ignore those pragmas:
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-pragma.cc
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-pragma.cc
@@ -1218,6 +1218,15 @@ handle_pragma_message (cpp_reader *ARG_UNUSED(dummy))
TREE_STRING_POINTER (message));
}
+/* Ignore a no-op pragma that GCC recognizes, but which has no effect. */
+static void
+handle_pragma_ignore (cpp_reader *)
+{
+ tree x;
+ while (pragma_lex (&x) != CPP_EOF)
+ /* Ignore the rest of the line. */;
+}
+
/* Mark whether the current location is valid for a STDC pragma. */
static bool valid_location_for_stdc_pragma;
@@ -1633,6 +1642,9 @@ init_pragma (void)
c_register_pragma ("GCC", "pop_options", handle_pragma_pop_options);
c_register_pragma ("GCC", "reset_options", handle_pragma_reset_options);
+ c_register_pragma (0, "region", handle_pragma_ignore);
+ c_register_pragma (0, "endregion", handle_pragma_ignore);
+
c_register_pragma ("STDC", "FLOAT_CONST_DECIMAL64",
handle_pragma_float_const_decimal64);
This needs tests though.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-08-27 20:46 ` [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio bmburstein at gmail dot com
2022-02-15 13:17 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-02-15 13:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-15 14:02 ` austinpmorton at gmail dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-02-15 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Exactly. Seems clang doesn't bother with it and allows anything, but it is
unclear if that is the best thing to do.
Is name and comment just a single identifier, or any sequence of any tokens
until end of line?
And, shall the compiler verify proper nestin of these, e.g. reject
#pragma endregion
without earlier #pragma region, or
#pragma region
without termination, or whenever they aren't properly nested?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2022-02-15 13:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-02-15 14:02 ` austinpmorton at gmail dot com
2022-02-15 15:23 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: austinpmorton at gmail dot com @ 2022-02-15 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
--- Comment #5 from Austin Morton <austinpmorton at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> The docs raise some questions.
>
> They say that a #pragma region must be ended by a #pragma endregion. Should
> the compiler check that and issue a diagnostic otherwise?
>
> What is the form of the optional "name" that follows #pragma region?
>
> What if #pragma endregion is followed by preprocessor tokens, not just a
> comment?
>
> If we don't care about validating anything, it's easy to make GCC completely
> ignore those pragmas:
>
> --- a/gcc/c-family/c-pragma.cc
> +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-pragma.cc
> @@ -1218,6 +1218,15 @@ handle_pragma_message (cpp_reader *ARG_UNUSED(dummy))
> TREE_STRING_POINTER (message));
> }
>
> +/* Ignore a no-op pragma that GCC recognizes, but which has no effect. */
> +static void
> +handle_pragma_ignore (cpp_reader *)
> +{
> + tree x;
> + while (pragma_lex (&x) != CPP_EOF)
> + /* Ignore the rest of the line. */;
> +}
> +
> /* Mark whether the current location is valid for a STDC pragma. */
>
> static bool valid_location_for_stdc_pragma;
> @@ -1633,6 +1642,9 @@ init_pragma (void)
> c_register_pragma ("GCC", "pop_options", handle_pragma_pop_options);
> c_register_pragma ("GCC", "reset_options", handle_pragma_reset_options);
>
> + c_register_pragma (0, "region", handle_pragma_ignore);
> + c_register_pragma (0, "endregion", handle_pragma_ignore);
> +
> c_register_pragma ("STDC", "FLOAT_CONST_DECIMAL64",
> handle_pragma_float_const_decimal64);
>
>
>
> This needs tests though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553182.html
I sent a patch to do exactly that in 2020 and it was not accepted.
This seems like a very easy win.
Both major competitors to GCC (clang and MSVC) implement this pragma exactly
like in my patch (by completely ignoring it).
As it stands today, this is plainly a deficiency in GCC when compared to its
competition.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2022-02-15 14:02 ` austinpmorton at gmail dot com
@ 2022-02-15 15:23 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-15 15:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-02-15 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Exactly. Seems clang doesn't bother with it and allows anything, but it is
> unclear if that is the best thing to do.
MSVC ignores any tokens after the region/endregion as well.
> Is name and comment just a single identifier, or any sequence of any tokens
> until end of line?
> And, shall the compiler verify proper nestin of these, e.g. reject
> #pragma endregion
> without earlier #pragma region, or
> #pragma region
> without termination, or whenever they aren't properly nested?
Again, other compilers don't care:
https://godbolt.org/z/zxhYaaz9Y
So it looks like this is completely ignored by the compiler, and any logic
relating to it exists only in the editor(s).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2022-02-15 15:23 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-02-15 15:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-15 15:32 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-02-15 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I would say that is a terrible design...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2022-02-15 15:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-02-15 15:32 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-15 15:34 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-02-15 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Austin Morton from comment #5)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553182.html
>
> I sent a patch to do exactly that in 2020 and it was not accepted.
Thanks. The review thread continues in November (but the mail archive doesn't
thread it properly across months):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/558900.html
I see what Jeff is saying, but I think the pragmatic approach here is to just
do exactly what your patch does: hardcode this warning as a no-op. We don't
have to do that for every pragma implemented by every compiler, because giving
a -Wunknown-pragmas warning about *unknown* pragmas is useful. GCC doesn't know
what the pragma was attempting to do, so it should warn.
But we do know what this one does: nothing. It's not unknown.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2022-02-15 15:32 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-02-15 15:34 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-17 11:45 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-02-15 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> I would say that is a terrible design...
Yes, I completely agree, but I don't see why GCC should be in the business of
diagnosing other people's junk :-)
Maybe Visual Studio's editor and VScode do have checks, just not the VC++
compiler. And if so, then that's even more reason that we don't need GCC to do
its own checking.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2022-02-15 15:34 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-02-17 11:45 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-21 17:11 ` fw at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-02-17 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
| |a/show_bug.cgi?id=61593
CC| |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> The docs raise some questions.
>
> They say that a #pragma region must be ended by a #pragma endregion. Should
> the compiler check that and issue a diagnostic otherwise?
>
> What is the form of the optional "name" that follows #pragma region?
>
> What if #pragma endregion is followed by preprocessor tokens, not just a
> comment?
>
> If we don't care about validating anything, it's easy to make GCC completely
> ignore those pragmas:
>
> --- a/gcc/c-family/c-pragma.cc
> +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-pragma.cc
> @@ -1218,6 +1218,15 @@ handle_pragma_message (cpp_reader *ARG_UNUSED(dummy))
> TREE_STRING_POINTER (message));
> }
>
> +/* Ignore a no-op pragma that GCC recognizes, but which has no effect. */
> +static void
> +handle_pragma_ignore (cpp_reader *)
> +{
> + tree x;
> + while (pragma_lex (&x) != CPP_EOF)
> + /* Ignore the rest of the line. */;
> +}
> +
> /* Mark whether the current location is valid for a STDC pragma. */
>
> static bool valid_location_for_stdc_pragma;
> @@ -1633,6 +1642,9 @@ init_pragma (void)
> c_register_pragma ("GCC", "pop_options", handle_pragma_pop_options);
> c_register_pragma ("GCC", "reset_options", handle_pragma_reset_options);
>
> + c_register_pragma (0, "region", handle_pragma_ignore);
> + c_register_pragma (0, "endregion", handle_pragma_ignore);
> +
> c_register_pragma ("STDC", "FLOAT_CONST_DECIMAL64",
> handle_pragma_float_const_decimal64);
>
>
>
> This needs tests though.
so, this seems relevant to bug 61593 too...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2022-02-17 11:45 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-02-21 17:11 ` fw at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-25 13:01 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: fw at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-02-21 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
Florian Weimer <fw at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from Florian Weimer <fw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Clang does not appear to treat this pragma as a statement. Is this also the
MSVC behavior?
int
f (int i)
{
if (i)
#pragma region
return 1;
#pragma endregion
return 0;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2022-02-21 17:11 ` fw at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-02-25 13:01 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-25 14:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-02-25 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> > I would say that is a terrible design...
>
> Yes, I completely agree, but I don't see why GCC should be in the business
> of diagnosing other people's junk :-)
>
> Maybe Visual Studio's editor and VScode do have checks, just not the VC++
> compiler. And if so, then that's even more reason that we don't need GCC to
> do its own checking.
Agreed. And if people with strict linting requirements want
a warning about pragmas that are recognised but have no effect
on the compiler, we could still provide an option to do that
(but it shouldn't be in -Wall or even -Wextra).
That shouldn't be a requirement for this PR though, unless anyone
can show that someone somewhere really does want these pragmas to
generate a warning.
Jeff said at the end of the thread that he wouldn't mind
if someone else approves it, so it's probably worth posting
again. The patch LGTM FWIW: only (very) minor comment is that
the unused argument name in handle_pragma_region can be dropped.
I think the patch would need to wait for GCC 13 now though.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2022-02-25 13:01 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-02-25 14:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-25 14:49 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-02-25 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org from comment #12)
> Jeff said at the end of the thread that he wouldn't mind
> if someone else approves it, so it's probably worth posting
> again.
OK, will do.
I think Jeff's desire for a framework to ignore arbitrary pragmas might be
nice, but nobody's going to do that, and this small improvement has a working
patch. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
> The patch LGTM FWIW: only (very) minor comment is that
> the unused argument name in handle_pragma_region can be dropped.
Yeah, that was consistent with the rest of the file, but I already changed the
rest in r12-7282-g73a118c209fcbb so I'd update my patch in the same way.
I'll also update it to ignore the very similar Xcode pragmas described in PR
61593.
> I think the patch would need to wait for GCC 13 now though.
Indeed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2022-02-25 14:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-02-25 14:49 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-30 15:43 ` bmburstein at gmail dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-02-25 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #11)
> Clang does not appear to treat this pragma as a statement. Is this also the
> MSVC behavior?
Yes, I think so. I'll check that my patch is consistent.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2022-02-25 14:49 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-30 15:43 ` bmburstein at gmail dot com
2022-11-11 4:28 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-11 4:28 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: bmburstein at gmail dot com @ 2022-05-30 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
--- Comment #15 from Baruch Burstein <bmburstein at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> (In reply to rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org from comment #12)
>
> > I think the patch would need to wait for GCC 13 now though.
>
> Indeed.
Now that GCC 13 is the main development trunk, can this patch be merged? If I
understood the comments in this thread correctly, the patch already exists and
was just waiting for GCC 12 to be branched.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-30 15:43 ` bmburstein at gmail dot com
@ 2022-11-11 4:28 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-11 4:28 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-11 4:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely <redi@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d3fe767c16e7c528e4fc71c8a68ac14b4573d880
commit r13-3887-gd3fe767c16e7c528e4fc71c8a68ac14b4573d880
Author: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Nov 9 21:49:52 2022 +0000
c-family: Support #pragma region/endregion [PR85487]
These pragmas are used by some editors to mark regions of code for
grouping and folding. GCC should silently ignore them, rather than
giving -Wunknown-pragmas warnings.
PR c/85487
gcc/ChangeLog:
* doc/cpp/pragmas.rst (Pragmas): Document region pragmas.
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
* c-pragma.cc (handle_pragma_ignore): New function.
(init_pragma): Register region and endregion pragmas.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* c-c++-common/pragma-region.c: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-11 4:28 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-11 4:28 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-11 4:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85487
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Implemented for GCC 13.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-11-11 4:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-85487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-08-27 20:46 ` [Bug c/85487] Support '#pragma region' and '#pragma endregion' to allow code folding with Visual Studio bmburstein at gmail dot com
2022-02-15 13:17 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-15 13:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-15 14:02 ` austinpmorton at gmail dot com
2022-02-15 15:23 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-15 15:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-15 15:32 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-15 15:34 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-17 11:45 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-21 17:11 ` fw at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-25 13:01 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-25 14:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-25 14:49 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-30 15:43 ` bmburstein at gmail dot com
2022-11-11 4:28 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-11 4:28 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).