Subject: RE: 1.3.2: gcc bug (NT 4.0)
From: Troy Noble <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:20:43 -0600

What does gcc --version report on your cygwin and linux installations?

Interestingly, I tried a later version of Linux (RedHat 7.0) that
uses gcc 2.96, and it did expand the macro properly in your original
code example.  And it even gave a useful warning.

.../tmp$ gcc --version
2.96
.../tmp$ gcc -E tmp.c
# 1 "tmp.c"

int main( int argc, char *argv[] )
{
tmp.c:7:42: warning: pasting would not give a valid preprocessing token
	printf( "%s", /usr/X11R6/lib );
	return 0;
}

So it appears the GCC folks know about this and have fixed it
around the gcc 2.96 timeframe.  I would guess that if it
was fixed in gcc 2.96 it'd also be fixed in gcc 3.0 when it 
becomes available for cygwin.  

If you are using the version of gcc that comes with cygwin-latest
it is likely 2.95.3 and this bug seems to still be present there.
As you reported.

There was talk on this list that someone was working on porting
gcc 3.0 to cygwin, but I don't recall ever seeing a release
announcement.  It's not on cygnus-latest yet.  Maybe someone could
fill in the blanks there as I've not been following that dicusssion
closely.

I suppose you could attempt to build gcc-3.0 yourself from
sources (it was released on GNU mirrors on 6/18/2001).  Not
sure how much work that would be though.

Troy

-----Original Message-----
From: Anyos Bela [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 8:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'Troy Noble'
Subject: RE: 1.3.2: gcc bug (NT 4.0)

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/