This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
[zackw@Stanford.EDU: Re: cpplib: Nix -g3.]
- To: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Subject: [zackw@Stanford.EDU: Re: cpplib: Nix -g3.]
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:49:41 -0500
----- Forwarded message from Zack Weinberg <zackw@Stanford.EDU> -----
From: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw@Stanford.EDU>
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: cpplib: Nix -g3.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:40:59 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20010111185440.I32364@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>; from email@example.com on Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:54:40PM +0000
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
----- End forwarded message -----
Does anyone know what the correct layout for # ? "file.c" is supposed
If this screws up gdb in some way, let's deal with it now...