From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13316 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2017 09:01:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 13306 invoked by uid 89); 21 Sep 2017 09:01:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1188, life X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:01:19 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70B2F1297; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:01:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 70B2F1297 Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=palves@redhat.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EF55EDEA; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:01:17 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFA] Add support for __VA_OPT__ To: Tom Tromey References: <20170918024223.5607-1-tom@tromey.com> <31c997d6-8866-2080-5fd2-ebed0871c98f@redhat.com> <874lrwsonf.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <63ab0211-8160-7ef2-5c9d-cfe5e85f9258@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:01:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <874lrwsonf.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-09/txt/msg00607.txt.bz2 On 09/21/2017 04:42 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Pedro> The patch looks good to me, though I think it'd be nice to see > Pedro> tests that make sure that ill-formed input doesn't send us > Pedro> to the weeds. Like: > Pedro> - does the state machine handle "__VA_OPT__)" gracefully? > Pedro> I.e., ')' before '('. > Pedro> - similarly: "__VA_OPT__)(,)" > Pedro> - does the state machine handle multiple occurrences of > Pedro> __VA_OPT__ in the same macro expansion? It looks like > Pedro> it, but.... > Pedro> Also, does this handle: > Pedro> __VA_OPT__(__VA_ARGS__) > Pedro> correctly? I think so, but... > > I've added all of these. Great, thanks! > > But I wonder if gdb should just error() on the invalid ones. > My first thought was no, why make life harder -- but at the same time, > the invalid cases really aren't that useful either. Yeah, error might be better - e.g., for someone trying to write a "macro define" interactively (without going via the compiler first), and puzzling about why it doesn't exactly work [due to some typo]. But we can decide to do that incrementally. Fine with me to push as is if you'd like. Thanks, Pedro Alves