From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Zack Weinberg" To: Neil Booth Cc: Jakub Jelinek , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: cpplib: Nix -g3. Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:41:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010111204059.F2032@wolery.stanford.edu> References: <20010109233506.C7013@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <20010109155204.A2032@wolery.stanford.edu> <20010110000706.C10605@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <20010110041336.V1120@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20010110211105.B21420@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <20010110154606.R2032@wolery.stanford.edu> <20010110235853.G21420@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <20010111005714.V2032@wolery.stanford.edu> <20010111185440.I32364@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00785.html On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:54:40PM +0000, Neil Booth wrote: > Zack Weinberg wrote:- > > > That too might've been something to do with. IIRC we're supposed to > > spit out > > > > # 1 "file.c" > > > > in between each builtin macro definition. 1 might have been 0. This > > was a very long time ago. > > Well, the nice thing is that this is the natural behaviour when you > remove those if statements. It also re-preprocesses correctly with > -fpreprocessed, with the patch below to prevent double-initialization > of builtins and command line switches. I must have got something > right when I moved all this stuff to cppmain.c :-) > > As for # 1 file.c or # 0 file.c, who's the right person to ask? If 0 > is the line number we want, it won't be too hard to correct, I think. The gdb people might know. I'd say leave it as 1 until someone complains. zw