From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5892 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2002 21:26:00 -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 5878 invoked by uid 71); 22 Oct 2002 21:26:00 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021022212600.5877.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Zack Weinberg Subject: Re: preprocessor/8270: back-slash newline extension can't be removed Reply-To: Zack Weinberg X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00835.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/8270; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Zack Weinberg To: Neil Booth Cc: eschmidt@safeaccess.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: preprocessor/8270: back-slash newline extension can't be removed Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:19:04 -0700 On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 08:57:43PM +0100, Neil Booth wrote: > eschmidt@safeaccess.com wrote:- > > > >Synopsis: back-slash newline extension can't be removed > > [...] > > > The preprocessor does not remove the extension allowing extra white space in a backslash-newline, even when GCC is invoked with -ansi > > > > gcc -ansi bug.c -o bug > > > > bug.c:1:13: warning: backslash and newline separated by space > > bug.c:3: parse error before "return" > > > > An executable file sohuld have been created. > > Zack, I favour closing this, since the behaviour can be avoided if > deemed necessary by judicious insertion of a C comment. Agreed? Agreed. I don't consider it necessary to cut any slack for people whose code depends on trailing whitespace. zw