Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Full Text Issue Listing |
Summary: | remove warnings from teh gsl modules | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | gsl | Reporter: | foskey | ||||
Component: | code | Assignee: | philipp.lohmann | ||||
Status: | CLOSED FIXED | QA Contact: | issues@gsl <issues> | ||||
Severity: | Trivial | ||||||
Priority: | P2 | CC: | issues | ||||
Version: | 644 | ||||||
Target Milestone: | OOo 1.1 Beta2 | ||||||
Hardware: | PC | ||||||
OS: | Linux, all | ||||||
Issue Type: | PATCH | Latest Confirmation in: | --- | ||||
Developer Difficulty: | --- | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
foskey
2003-04-13 15:06:17 UTC
Created attachment 5620 [details]
concat operator not required, generates warning in gcc 3.2
cp->pl: please have a look vanish from my intray REsetting priority. It will crash a gcc 3.3 build. I could apply that patch easily, but don't you think the gcc people should make their preprocessor behave standard conforming ? Or can you tell me in what way the statement in question is invalid ? I mean what do they choose to remove next, #define ? The message is 'not a valid preprocessor token'. It is correct to the c standard and gcc is extremely standards compliant. Extreme is used here for obvious reasons. will apply applied in CWS vcl08. I still think the gcc people should see that they get their act together; the file in question is definitely not C but C++ and the master himself tells us that the ## preprocesor operator is perfectly valid (on p.609 2nd ed. of The C++ Programmin Language, Bjarne Stroustrup). verified in vcl08 merged |