Gregory M. Turner gmturner007 at
Mon May 19 14:53:25 CDT 2003

On Monday 19 May 2003 12:02 pm, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> You can't make it portable anyway, you will still need nested
> functions and other gcc-isms. Unless you want to reimplement a full C
> compiler in your preprocessor...

I don't know, I haven't thought this all the way through.  Obviously, there is 
the potential for this to become rather involved depending on the approach.  
Might be easier to do on a post-preprocessed file... Allowing for gcc-isms 
makes it easier, but obviously defeats the purpose of making it portable to 
different compilers.

A portable approach probably would require a full lexical breakdown and 
significant restructuring of the affected source files, at least in the 
affected portions of the source.  This would require a significant amount of 
computational expense for the consumer at compile time, and maybe at run-time 
too, at least for non-gcc builds.  

I am sure that there is no shortage of appropriately-licensed C lexer/parsers 
out there I could borrow code from, so maybe the implementation part might 
not be so difficult as it seems at a glance.  If you are open to the concept, 
Alexandre, I'd be happy to experiment.  If not, I'd be happy to give up for 
the time being, and focus on other things ;)

"A just security to property is not afforded by that government,
under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and
reward another species." --James Madison


More information about the wine-devel mailing list