On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 01:04:02PM +0100, Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
Why is the code only used, when "WANT_NEAR_INDICATION" is defined? Should we remove the code or enable it always?
@@ -591,18 +592,17 @@ static void generic_msg(const char *s, c fprintf(stderr, "%s:%d:%d: %s: ", pp_status.input ? pp_status.input : "stdin", pp_status.line_number, pp_status.char_number, t); vfprintf(stderr, s, ap); -#ifdef WANT_NEAR_INDICATION
- if(n) {
+#ifdef WANT_NEAR_INDICATION char *cpy, *p;
if(n){cpy = pp_xstrdup(n);for (p = cpy; *p; p++) if(!isprint(*p)) *p = ' ';fprintf(stderr, " near '%s'", cpy);free(cpy);}- }
cpy = pp_xstrdup(n);for (p = cpy; *p; p++) if(!isprint(*p)) *p = ' ';fprintf(stderr, " near '%s'", cpy);free(cpy);#endif
- } fprintf(stderr, "\n");
}
Related, although not really a great solution:
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-cvs/2006-September/026094.html
I forget, are the extra "near" messages actually helpful, or misleading? In any case, whatever ends up happening here should probably also happen in widl, since it uses wpp and consistent warning/error messages are nice.