From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9B3C3858D37 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 13:07:02 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D9B3C3858D37 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [217.28.27.60]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 893D91E0D3; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 09:07:02 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1667480822; bh=rP2IxOEDy/mzN6hUf0Ineus7gjlUc8QKoYGcVZWhv2Q=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=r4pMvvnv8y63ZSpC83U8wZTQSzaTXJzHHbnZJhIMCZ+W8Lp0JjGS2sy2Rj41LFhE/ 2jw5aqkgMYBOLnEig5l6uSilf+TzuPqL0N6SeKAK3975vzoGJYJz6bEF6kb7N86Gwu 4pWHx7sWUr1DCVAt4gT7rjknxE50W8B2VUMajSGA= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 09:07:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] gdb: Fix issue with Clang CLI macros Content-Language: en-US To: Bruno Larsen , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20221018132215.2593111-1-blarsen@redhat.com> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 11/3/22 08:58, Bruno Larsen via Gdb-patches wrote: > On 02/11/2022 13:36, Simon Marchi wrote: >>> +# Clang has this bug where it puts the macros defined on the command-line >>> +# after the main file portion (see PR 29034) and: >> I'm not sure if the "and" a the end is supposed to be there or not, it >> reads weird. > > Oops, it was supposed to be inside the parenthesis, making it > > (see PR 29034 and https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54506) > > > Is it fine if I keep it like that? Sure. Simon