From: Rafael L. <lab...@ps...> - 2003-05-22 13:43:12
|
The file drivers/ntk.c does not compile with gcc-3.3, because the ability to have multi-line literal has been removed (see, e.g., http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7376). I am going to replace all instances of: "first part second part" by: "first part\n" "second part\n" unless someone opposes to this change (Joao?). -- Rafael |
From: <jc...@fe...> - 2003-05-22 15:59:33
|
On Thursday 22 May 2003 14:16, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: | The file drivers/ntk.c does not compile with gcc-3.3, because the | ability to have multi-line literal has been removed (see, e.g., | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7376). I am going to | replace all instances of: | | "first part | second part" | | by: | | "first part\n" | "second part\n" | | unless someone opposes to this change (Joao?). That's fine for me. Will it work? Joao |
From: Rafael L. <lab...@ps...> - 2003-05-22 20:42:46
|
* João Cardoso <jc...@fe...> [2003-05-22 16:50]: > On Thursday 22 May 2003 14:16, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > | The file drivers/ntk.c does not compile with gcc-3.3, because the > | ability to have multi-line literal has been removed (see, e.g., > | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7376). I am going to > | replace all instances of: > | > | "first part > | second part" > | > | by: > | > | "first part\n" > | "second part\n" > | > | unless someone opposes to this change (Joao?). > > That's fine for me. Done and committed. > Will it work? Yes. -- Rafael |
From: Maurice L. <mj...@ga...> - 2003-05-22 20:58:08
|
Rafael Laboissiere writes: > The file drivers/ntk.c does not compile with gcc-3.3, because the ability to > have multi-line literal has been removed (see, e.g., > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7376). I am going to replace > all instances of: > > "first part > second part" > > by: > > "first part\n" > "second part\n" > > unless someone opposes to this change (Joao?). I meant to respond to this sooner. I'm not opposed, but you can still do stuff like: fprintf(stderr, "\ This is an example of multiline string string output.\n\ It should work just fine because of the trailing backslash.\n\ I rather like this form because it appears in the code exactly like it\n\ does to the user.\n\ "); -- Maurice LeBrun Lightspeed Semiconductor Corp |
From: Rafael L. <lab...@ps...> - 2003-05-22 21:48:55
|
* Maurice LeBrun <mj...@ga...> [2003-05-22 15:56]: > Rafael Laboissiere writes: > > The file drivers/ntk.c does not compile with gcc-3.3, because the ability to > > have multi-line literal has been removed (see, e.g., > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7376). I am going to replace > > all instances of: > > > > "first part > > second part" > > > > by: > > > > "first part\n" > > "second part\n" > > > > unless someone opposes to this change (Joao?). > > I meant to respond to this sooner. I'm not opposed, but you can still do > stuff like: > > fprintf(stderr, "\ > This is an example of multiline string string output.\n\ > It should work just fine because of the trailing backslash.\n\ > I rather like this form because it appears in the code exactly like it\n\ > does to the user.\n\ > "); You are right. Is there any particular reason to prefer the style above instead of what I proposed? -- Rafael |
From: Maurice L. <mj...@ga...> - 2003-05-22 22:10:44
|
Rafael Laboissiere writes: > * Maurice LeBrun <mj...@ga...> [2003-05-22 15:56]: > > > Rafael Laboissiere writes: > > > The file drivers/ntk.c does not compile with gcc-3.3, because the ability to > > > have multi-line literal has been removed (see, e.g., > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7376). I am going to replace > > > all instances of: > > > > > > "first part > > > second part" > > > > > > by: > > > > > > "first part\n" > > > "second part\n" > > > > > > unless someone opposes to this change (Joao?). > > > > I meant to respond to this sooner. I'm not opposed, but you can still do > > stuff like: > > > > fprintf(stderr, "\ > > This is an example of multiline string string output.\n\ > > It should work just fine because of the trailing backslash.\n\ > > I rather like this form because it appears in the code exactly like it\n\ > > does to the user.\n\ > > "); > > You are right. Is there any particular reason to prefer the style above > instead of what I proposed? Nope, just personal preference. The trailing backslash way looks slightly cleaner to me, but either way is fine. -- Maurice LeBrun Lightspeed Semiconductor Corp |