From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 76293 invoked by alias); 30 May 2019 20:38:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 76284 invoked by uid 89); 30 May 2019 20:38:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,KAM_SHORT,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=Wouldn't, Wouldnt, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 May 2019 20:38:09 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C782775EDC; Thu, 30 May 2019 20:38:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ovpn-116-96.phx2.redhat.com (ovpn-116-96.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.96]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F07D7E321; Thu, 30 May 2019 20:38:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1559248684.2997.156.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH][Preprocessor]patch to fix PR 90581 From: David Malcolm To: Qing Zhao , Bernhard Reutner-Fischer Cc: gcc Patches Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 20:42:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <6E77B3DB-A2D1-48EB-9CDF-5225135AB3BE@oracle.com> References: <18B02683-0BD4-4B3C-A7A9-38C0294349FB@gmail.com> <6E77B3DB-A2D1-48EB-9CDF-5225135AB3BE@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-05/txt/msg02053.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 15:17 -0500, Qing Zhao wrote: > > On May 30, 2019, at 2:13 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer > gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 30 May 2019 18:23:43 CEST, Qing Zhao > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > PR 90581 (provide an option to adjust the maximum depth of nested > > > #include) > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90581 > > > > > > is to add a new cpp option -fmax-inlcude-depth > > > > Typo inl vs inc. > > Okay, will fix this. > > > > > Why isn't this a param? > > do you mean to change “-fmax-include-depth=” to “-param max-include- > depth=“? > That sounds like a good idea to me. > > Wouldn't a param ease range checking not to overflow the uint max > > and maybe automagically provide diagnostics for out of range input? (indeed)