<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
On 2/28/2012 11:37 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F4D2CFD.3050809@gmx.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 28.02.2012 10:56, Walter Bright wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F4CA4DE.4020503@digitalmars.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<br>
On 2/28/2012 12:41 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F4C934D.5080706@gmx.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
this line was reverted:<br>
<pre>+inline char *prettyident(Symbol *s) { return CPP ? cpp_prettyident(s) : s->Sident; }</pre>
<br>
but it causes a link failure due to missing symbol
cpp_prettyident. Where should I put its implementation?
dsymbol.c? Maybe it should be added to the D source
unconditionally, not only for _MSC_VER.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The thing is, CPP is 0. So it should never be calling
cpp_prettyident. Other compilers optimize it away.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I assumed they do, but obviously the Microsoft compiler does not,
especially in debug builds. I'd say it does not hurt to add this
function with an assert(false) somewhere.My best guesses are
dsymbol.c or glue.c? Objections?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, just be sure the result compiles. The previous iteration did not
compile with anything but MSVC.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F4D2CFD.3050809@gmx.de" type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F4CA4DE.4020503@digitalmars.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4F4C934D.5080706@gmx.de" type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4f484bcc1e4de_2d353fa15d6dfaf48121e@sh1.rs.github.com.mail"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> M src/backend/cg87.c</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
reverted the use of longdouble. If I read the includes
correctly, it should be defined in cdef.h for a C compiler
aswell. Why should it not be used?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Not sure what happened there.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ok, then I'll put them back in.<br>
<br>
Maybe you disliked the ld_... constants? I can name these similar
to M_..._L, but it needs additional constants for 0 and 1. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't remember what happened with that.<br>
</body>
</html>