[zackw@Stanford.EDU: Re: cpplib: Nix -g3.]

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

----- Forwarded message from Zack Weinberg <zackw@Stanford.EDU> -----

From: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw@Stanford.EDU>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.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 neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk 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
complains.

zw

----- End forwarded message -----

Does anyone know what the correct layout for # ? "file.c" is supposed
to be?

If this screws up gdb in some way, let's deal with it now...

cgf