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
Message-Id: <200102012259.f11Mxs315674@capella.ssd.hal.com>
Subject: Re: misdefined macro _T in winnt.h
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:59:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3A798D62.A9D8B309@yahoo.com> from "Earnie Boyd" at Feb 01, 2001 11:22:58 AM
From: "J. J. Farrell" <jjf AT bcs DOT org DOT uk>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> From: Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
> 
> Eric Paire wrote:
> > 
> > Sorry folks, I have forgotten to tell you to compile it with the _UNICODE
> > and UNICODE defined. Here is a corrected  version that has some problems
> > when compiled:
> > 
> > ------  Cut Here  ------  Cut Here  ------  Cut Here  ------  Cut Here  ------
> >  #define __DIR "dir"
> > 
> >  #include <stddef.h>
> >  #include <tchar.h>
> >  main() {
> >         size_t len = wcslen(_T(__DIR)) + wcslen(_T("dir"));
> >         size_t len = wcslen(_TEXT(__DIR)) + wcslen(_TEXT("dir"));
> >         exit(len);
> >  }
> > ------  Cut Here  ------  Cut Here  ------  Cut Here  ------  Cut Here  ------
> > 
> > You will see that the problem is around the evaluation of the __DIR macro
> > (there is no problem with "dir"), both for _TEXT and _T. In addition, this
> > should be fixed also for the _T and _TEXT definitions in <winnt.h>, which
> > should be coherent with those in <tchar.h> (They are not for now, as _T is
> > defined either as an object-like macro (in <winnt.h>) or as a function-like
> > macro (in <tchar.h>)).
> > 
> > If you want me to provide you with a patch (and a ChangeLog), let me know...
> 
> No, I don't need a patch.  I do need to know if
>   L"dir" == L("dir")
> ?  The problem with this macro is the use of the macro concatenation ##
> and the order in which the macros are resolved.  Currently we have
>   #define _T(x) L ## x
> and if you pass a macro FOO as an argument to this macro you get LFOO
> returned and not the value of FOO appended to L.  If I change this to
>   #define _T(x) L(x)
> then I get returned L("bar") where "bar" is the value of FOO.  This
> allows the program to compile but does L"bar" == L("bar")?


No. I'm certain of that, more or less ...


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple