seh_try_macros2-00
Gregory M. Turner
gmturner007 at ameritech.net
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
gmt
More information about the wine-devel
mailing list