From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5311 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2008 15:46:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 5303 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Feb 2008 15:46:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:46:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1KFjspu008134 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:46:06 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m1KFjlZ1006112; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:45:54 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ton.yyz.redhat.com [10.15.16.15]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m1KFjkYf002949; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:45:47 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 068018883BA; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:59:07 -0700 (MST) To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Patch ping References: <20080220133526.GM24887@devserv.devel.redhat.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com X-Attribution: Tom Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:26:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20080220133526.GM24887@devserv.devel.redhat.com> (Jakub Jelinek's message of "Wed\, 20 Feb 2008 08\:35\:26 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00864.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jakub" == Jakub Jelinek writes: Jakub> Preprocessing fix for macro expanded #pragmas: Jakub> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-01/msg01145.html Jakub> Bootstrapped/regtested many times on many linux targets, ok for 4.4? I don't think I can approve or reject this patch, since it is part of the C FE and not libcpp. That said, it looks pretty reasonable to me. It seems a bit odd to duplicate the pragma/name mapping in c_pp_lookup_pragma and in init_pragma. I think it would be mildly better to keep this information in a single place. Tom