Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Reply-To:	<Anyos DOT Bela AT evosoft DOT hu>
From:	"Anyos Bela" <Anyos DOT Bela AT evosoft DOT hu>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Cc:	"'Troy Noble'" <troy DOT noble AT channelpoint DOT com>
Subject:	RE: 1.3.2: gcc bug (NT 4.0)
Date:	Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:35:24 +0200
Message-ID:	<001001c116a9$602a8d10$b86e10ac@evosoft.hu>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200

First of all thanks for the quick answer...

Like I mentioned in brackets this code fragment is explicitely 
created for testing purpuses.
I don't intend to use it as it appeared in the mail, not talking
about compiling it. It was created to test the preprocessor only !

The printf() was there just to "do" something meaningful :)

I also tried it on a Linux box with gcc installed but it seemed
working well. I try it again and get back with the result.
If it doesn't work, I'll report the bug to a gcc specific list,
like you suggested.


Thanks again,
Bela


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -