Re: [ Preprocessor ] [ Common ] Feature: Macros for identifying the wide and narrow execution string literal encoding

[Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>]

On 10/9/20 6:39 AM, JeanHeyd Meneide via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> Typo:  comple-time
>>
>>> 2020-10-08  JeanHeyd "ThePhD" Meneide  <phdofthehouse@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>        * gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c: Add predefined macro
>>> definitions for charsets
>> I think you should put the macro names in braces after the filename and drop the trailing "for charsets".
>      Can do!
>
>>>        * gcc/doc/cpp.texi: Document new predefined macro.
>>>    * gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/wide-narrow-predef-macros.c (new):
>> I think you should drop "(new)" above.
>> thanks,
>      I saw that in previous changelogs, but I can change it! Fixed up
> the typos, too.
>
> Sincerely,
> JeanHeyd
>
> 2020-10-09  JeanHeyd "ThePhD" Meneide  <phdofthehouse@gmail.com>
>
>         * gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c: Add predefined
>           {__GNUC_EXECUTION_CHARSET_NAME} and
>           {__GNUC_WIDE_EXECUTION_CHARSET_NAME} macros
>         * gcc/doc/cpp.texi: Document above new predefined macros
>         * gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cpp/wide-narrow-predef-macros.c:
>           New test for macro definitions to always exist and be strings
>         * libcpp/include/cpplib.h: Add functions declarations for
>           retrieving charset names
>         * libcpp/directives.c: Add function definitions to retrieve charset
>           names
>         * libcpp/internal.h: Add to/from name preservations
>
> encoding_names.patch.txt
>

[ ... ]
> diff --git a/libcpp/charset.c b/libcpp/charset.c
> index 28b81c9c864..3e5578b1390 100644
> --- a/libcpp/charset.c
> +++ b/libcpp/charset.c
> @@ -638,6 +638,9 @@ init_iconv_desc (cpp_reader *pfile, const char *to, const char *from)
>    char *pair;
>    size_t i;
>  
> +  ret.to = to;
> +  ret.from = from;
> +
AFAICT ret.from is never used.  Is there a reason why you're saving it?


You use a getter function to retrieve the value of ret.to, which is
fine.  Is there a specific reason why you're not using a setter function
to save the value?

Otherwise I think this is basically ready to be included.

jeff