From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14490 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2002 09:36:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14460 invoked by uid 71); 21 Mar 2002 09:36:02 -0000 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 01:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020321093602.14452.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Mario Deilmann Subject: Re: c++/6001: g++ problems with nested headers from > egcs-2.91.66 until 3.0.0 Reply-To: Mario Deilmann X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00789.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/6001; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mario Deilmann To: Neil Booth Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/6001: g++ problems with nested headers from > egcs-2.91.66 until 3.0.0 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:28:39 +0100 (MET) Dear Neil, again thanks for your help. The hint was very helpful to get the right output but I cannot see why I got an error like /home/mdeil/bin/../include/g++-v3/sparc-sun-solaris2.7/bits/basic_file_model.h:39: parse error before `;' token only because I changed the sequence of some includes. The code with the nested headers looks syntactically correct for me. The only thing I would expect from a different include sequence are problems with definitions not a parse error. Anyhow I also didn't want to investigate more on this because I have no clue what I should look for and because I have a workaround if I ommit nested headers. So if this is enough to close the bugreport please do so. Viele Gruesse / Best Regards -- Mario Mario Deilmann Senior Sales Engineer -------------------------------------------------------------------- //// pallas Pallas GmbH / Hermuelheimer Str. 10 / 50321 Bruehl / Germany Mario.Deilmann@pallas.com / www.pallas.com Tel +49-2232-1896-31 / Fax +49-2232-1896-29 -------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Neil Booth wrote: > Mario Deilmann wrote:- > > > I tried gcc -E -H on both files and there are a LOT of differences (about > > 1200). I have looked into the differences and most of them obviously are > > caused by the different include sequence. > > > > I have no idea where I should look for the important differences ? Any > > idea ? > > Try > > gcc file.c -E -H > /dev/null > > which just lists the header trail. Then have a look at the first header > where they diverge, and figure out why. It's either because your path > is different, or a command line or builtin macro is different. I can't > help you any more than that I'm afraid. > > Neil. >