search

dotdotpan / exceptions4c

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/exceptions4c
0 stars 0 forks source link

MinGW compilation failure #13

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This bug is likely due to MinGW, not exceptions4c, but it's easy to fix.

In e4c.h, line 339:

# define E4C_USE \

Simply add parentheses:

# define E4C_USE() \

Without them, the MinGW compiler complains about a syntax error.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by tal.liron on 12 Mar 2014 at 7:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Trying to reproduce this issue to fully understand it...

Original comment by guillermocalvo on 16 Mar 2014 at 7:00

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I'm using "MinGW GCC 4.8.1 32-bit Release" and it works nicely.
Which MinGW version are you using? Could you please show me the compiler log?
Thanks in advance :)

Original comment by guillermocalvo on 16 Mar 2014 at 7:37

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
It seemed to also disappear for me now with Ubuntu's packaged MinGW-w64. 
However, when I downloaded the latest snapshots of MinGW-w64 from their 
website, it failed there.

This might be a very rare bug, but I see no harm in putting this in just to 
make sure it won't fail with some weird compilers...

Original comment by tal.liron on 16 Mar 2014 at 7:41

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Problem is I'm not sure if `#define E4C_USE()` is a legal macro definition :-/

Original comment by guillermocalvo on 16 Mar 2014 at 7:49

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Oh, I'm sure it is! At least, I use that format all the time. Here's another 
opinion:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4251005/what-is-the-difference-between-a-c-pr
eprocessor-macro-with-no-arguments-and-o

Original comment by tal.liron on 16 Mar 2014 at 7:53

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Honestly, it doesn't feel right to me replacing a valid macro definition for 
another, simply to avoid a rare compiler bug :(

Even if macros with zero arguments seem to work on most compilers, portability 
could be compromised (exceptions4c intends to be ANSI C compatible), although I 
should test it on old compilers to be sure.

In addition, for the sake of coherence I would be forced to replace every macro 
definition: FOO => FOO()

Therefore, as long as this issue keeps being a rarity that occurs only with 
certain versions of MinGW, I think I'm just going to leave it as it is.

Thanks for your understanding.

Original comment by guillermocalvo on 16 Mar 2014 at 11:31

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Sure. I will keep a patched version for my needs.

Original comment by tal.liron on 16 Mar 2014 at 11:33