From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Booth To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: preprocessor/2948 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:26:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010529172602.21155.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg01005.html List-Id: The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/2948; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Neil Booth To: Sean McNeil Cc: nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: preprocessor/2948 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 18:24:21 +0100 Sean McNeil wrote:- > The pragmas are indeed getting passed through by the cpp0. So why would > they compile differently in the two cases? This is very strange. It is > related to that #pragma, though. Perhaps the cpp is told to parse things > differently? Are the pragmas merely #pragma implementation or are they #pragma implementation "filename" ? I think it's an issue with file names not comparing as strings properly because of path information, or something like that. Does that give you a clue? Is there a #pragma interface somewhere to match the #pragma implementation? Is this a 2.95 regression? I'm going to re-file this as a C++ bug. Neil.