From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean McNeil To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: preprocessor/2948 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 18:26:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010530012600.20939.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg01019.html List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/2948; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Sean McNeil To: Neil Booth Cc: nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: preprocessor/2948 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 18:22:00 -0700 I found the following error when I compile via. the 2 stage mechanism with gcc 2.95.3: arm-wrs-vxworks-g++ -v -mcpu=arm8 -mapcs-32 -mlittle-endian -ansi -nostdinc -fno-implicit-templates -DVXW_EXPLICIT_TEMPLATES -O2 -mno-sched-prolog -I/usr/arm-wrs-vxworks/target/h -DCPU=ARMARCH4 -DARMEL -fno-exceptions -o /tmp/ttt.o -c /tmp/ttt.cc PlotFile.cpp:67: `#pragma implementation' can only appear at top-level Sean Neil Booth wrote: > 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.