On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:46:15 +0000, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:
[Paul A. Bristow]
But I haven't understood if there will be grief from existing macro code if the Microsoft fix it?
Probably (VC preprocesses billions of lines of code). But if I were a compiler dev, I'd deal with it with pragmas (superior to compiler options, because a header could push/pop requests for preprocessor conformance).
I actually don't think this would work very well. Remember we're talking about macros here and, in particular, libraries which *define* macros for users to use. To handle that in a way that scales with pragmas (or even _Pragmas), you'd have to be "remembering" the pragma state of the definition and changing the algorithm mid-replacement (which sounds like more bugs, not less). Even if that worked, I wouldn't use pragmas either-- especially not pragmas to make the compiler do what it already should do by default. The best case scenario, if you want to support legacy mode: compiler switch to *disable* a compliant preprocessor. I.e. do the right thing _by default_ (just like with for-loop scoping). That, of course, means fixing the Windows headers (which, BTW, need to be printed, the prints burned, and then deleted for their wanton macro abuse). If the preprocessor works the way it should, most macro uses that currently work will still work. The ones that won't will either be fancier than is typical or rely on bad (or missing) implementation of the early phases of translation (e.g. macro-formed comments). -Paul