On 20/11/2018 00:18, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 08:52:42PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>>
>> The current -dD option outputs the macro definitions, in addition to the
>> pre-processed text. In contrast, the -dM option outputs only the macro
>> definitions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> lib.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++-----
>> lib.h | 1 +
>> validation/preprocessor/dump-macros-only.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++
>> validation/preprocessor/dump-macros.c | 6 ++++
>> 4 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 validation/preprocessor/dump-macros-only.c
>>
>> diff --git a/lib.c b/lib.c
>> index 07a5b9c..23c3d27 100644
>> --- a/lib.c
>> +++ b/lib.c
>> @@ -287,6 +287,7 @@ int Wunknown_attribute = 0;
>> int Wvla = 1;
>>
>> int dump_macro_defs = 0;
>> +int dump_macros_only = 0;
>>
>> int dbg_compound = 0;
>> int dbg_dead = 0;
>> @@ -794,16 +795,34 @@ static char **handle_switch_v(char *arg, char **next)
>> return next;
>> }
>>
>> -static struct flag dumps[] = {
>> - { "D", &dump_macro_defs},
>> -};
>> -
>> static char **handle_switch_d(char *arg, char **next)
>> {
>> - char ** ret = handle_onoff_switch(arg, next, dumps, ARRAY_SIZE(dumps));
>> - if (ret)
>> - return ret;
>> + char *arg_char = arg + 1;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * -d<CHARS>, where <CHARS> is a sequence of characters, not preceded
>> + * by a space. If you specify characters whose behaviour conflicts,
>> + * the result is undefined.
>> + */
>> + while (*arg_char) {
>> + switch (*arg_char) {
>> + case 'M': /* dump just the macro definitions */
>> + dump_macros_only = 1;
>> + dump_macro_defs = 0;
>
> I prefer a small change in the logic to have dump_macro_defs set
> here too.
Hmm, I don't quite follow.
>
>> + break;
>> + case 'D': /* like 'M', but also output pre-processed text */
>> + dump_macro_defs = 1;
>> + dump_macros_only = 0;
>> + break;
>
>
>> + case 'N': /* like 'D', but only output macro names not bodies */
>> + break;
>> + case 'I': /* like 'D', but also output #include directives */
>> + break;
>> + case 'U': /* like 'D', but only output expanded macros */
>> + break;
>
> Do you have a specific reason to add those three too?
> Now if someone use 'gcc -d[NIU] ...' will silently succeed, right?
Heh, yeah, I was going to see how much effort it would take to
implement all of the options that gcc provides, so I put these
here as a reminder/place-holder ... but didn't get back to it! :-D
> Just asking, since I'm not sure yet if it is a good thing or not.
Yep, they should probably error out.
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
