From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/11243 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: superfluous space char in marco Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:02:08 -0400 Message-ID: <20170417170208.GA17319@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20170417144841.GZ17319@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1492448545 13226 195.159.176.226 (17 Apr 2017 17:02:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:02:25 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-11258-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Apr 17 19:02:17 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d0A2b-0003D9-0B for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 19:02:17 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 23685 invoked by uid 550); 17 Apr 2017 17:02:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 23658 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2017 17:02:20 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:11243 Archived-At: On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 06:28:58PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > On Mon, 17 Apr 2017, Rich Felker wrote: > > This is odd and looks like a gcc bug. Preprocessor macros definitions > > are sequences of PP tokens, not literal code strings, meaning that > > whitespace is irrelevant as long as the resulting sequence of PP > > tokens remains the same; it's a matching definition not a > > redefinition. > > No, according to C11 6.10.3 p1 presence of whitespace is significant (its > contents are not), and 6.10.3.5 example 6 corroborates that. GCC, Clang, > ICC and MSVC on Godbolt all agree with that. Thanks for clarifying! I had forgotten this detail. It probably makes sense to change it, then. Rich