Implement #elifdef and #elifndef #467
Conversation
src/Preprocessor.zig
Outdated
| } | ||
| switch (if_kind.get(if_level)) { | ||
| until_else => { | ||
| const macro_name = (try pp.expectMacroName(&tokenizer)) orelse continue; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think a missing macro name should be considered false similarly to a missing expression with #if.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have tested it with clang and you are right, i have also added a test for checking the missing macro name in the commit ef844b6
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Clang generate this output:
test/cases/#elifdefc2x_error.c:7:9: error: macro name missing
#elifdef
^
# 10 "test/cases/#elifdefc2x_error.c"
inttest/cases/#elifdefc2x_error.c:16:10: error: macro name missing
#elifndef
^
# 19 "test/cases/#elifdefc2x_error.c"
int
2 errors generated.And Gcc genete this:
# 10 "test/cases/#elifdefc2x_error.c"
int
# 19 "test/cases/#elifdefc2x_error.c"
intI think the behaviour of gcc looks more correct, i'm going to commit to the pull request to reflect this.
With the change now both #elifdef and #elifndef are considered false when the macro name is missing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If there are not more issues, I think that with commit e156730 it should be ready to merge.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like they have the same output with clang missing a newline after the int.
Implement C23 feature #elifdef and #elifndef from #430.
For testing added two new Preproccesor tests #elifdef.c and #elifdefc2x.c to check it is proccessed correctly with the -std=c2x flag
Also changed build.zig to compile with current master branch of zig.