cpphs and C++-style comments

older
Building haddock docs with Cabal...

Ross Paterson

13 Sep 2007 13 Sep '07

8:31 a.m.

Recent versions of cpphs also strip // comments in --strip mode, which causes problems with preprocessing Data.Array.Base, where (//) is an operator. It's necessary to strip C comments from that file, because it includes MachDeps.h, and that includes ghcautoconf.h, which being generated by autoconf has lots of C-style comments. (Though gcc's cpp strips them too -- I'm not sure how this ever worked.)

Show replies by date

Ian Lynagh

13 Sep 13 Sep

8:36 a.m.

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:31:52PM +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:

...

Recent versions of cpphs also strip // comments in --strip mode,

(Though gcc's cpp strips them too -- I'm not sure how this ever worked.)

"gcc -E -traditional" doesn't strip them; that's how it works in GHC at least. Thanks Ian

Malcolm Wallace

9:13 a.m.

Ross Paterson wrote:

...

...
Recent versions of cpphs also strip // comments in --strip mode,

Ian Lynagh wrote:

...

"gcc -E -traditional" doesn't strip them; that's how it works in GHC at least.

Would you like to have separate option flags in cpphs for stripping the different kinds of C comment? e.g. --strip and --stripAnsi? Regards, Malcolm

Ross Paterson

14 Sep 14 Sep

5:13 a.m.

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:13:18PM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:

...

Would you like to have separate option flags in cpphs for stripping the different kinds of C comment? e.g. --strip and --stripAnsi?

Separate options would resuscitate the Hugs build, so yes please. As for the name, camel-case is not the usually used for options, and might ANSI some day bless C99? How about --strip-traditional or --strip-c89?

Malcolm Wallace

11:39 a.m.

...

...
Would you like to have separate option flags in cpphs for stripping the different kinds of C comment? e.g. --strip and --stripAnsi?

Separate options would resuscitate the Hugs build, so yes please. How about --strip-traditional or --strip-c89?

OK, done. The new option is --strip-c89. Regards, Malcolm

Ross Paterson

1:12 p.m.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:39:05PM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:

...

...
...
Would you like to have separate option flags in cpphs for stripping the different kinds of C comment? e.g. --strip and --stripAnsi?

Separate options would resuscitate the Hugs build, so yes please. How about --strip-traditional or --strip-c89?

OK, done. The new option is --strip-c89.

Thanks. Now we have a conundrum: should Cabal 1.2 use the new option, and thus require the latest cpphs, or stick with the old option and be broken with the new cpphs? Cabal only invokes cpphs for non-GHC builds, so I'd say use it.

Duncan Coutts

1:38 p.m.

In message <20070914171244.GA11741@soi.city.ac.uk> libraries@haskell.org, cabal-devel@haskell.org writes:

...

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:39:05PM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:

...
...
...
Would you like to have separate option flags in cpphs for stripping the different kinds of C comment? e.g. --strip and --stripAnsi?

Separate options would resuscitate the Hugs build, so yes please. How about --strip-traditional or --strip-c89?

OK, done. The new option is --strip-c89.

Thanks. Now we have a conundrum: should Cabal 1.2 use the new option, and thus require the latest cpphs, or stick with the old option and be broken with the new cpphs? Cabal only invokes cpphs for non-GHC builds, so I'd say use it.

Cabal knows the version of cpphs so it can use the new flag or the old one depending on the version of cpphs being used. Duncan

Ross Paterson

1:50 p.m.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 06:38:41PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:

...

In message <20070914171244.GA11741@soi.city.ac.uk> libraries@haskell.org, cabal-devel@haskell.org writes:

...
Thanks. Now we have a conundrum: should Cabal 1.2 use the new option, and thus require the latest cpphs, or stick with the old option and be broken with the new cpphs? Cabal only invokes cpphs for non-GHC builds, so I'd say use it.

Cabal knows the version of cpphs so it can use the new flag or the old one depending on the version of cpphs being used.

OK, so time to bump the version number of cpphs, then?

Malcolm Wallace

4:06 p.m.

Ross Paterson writes:

...

...
...
Thanks. Now we have a conundrum: should Cabal 1.2 use the new option, and thus require the latest cpphs, or stick with the old option and be broken with the new cpphs?

Hmm. There could be a better solution. Since no released version of cpphs has yet had the behaviour of stripping C eol // comments, (only the darcs version) there is still time to change the meaning of the flags. In particular, we could swap --strip back to mean what it used to mean (the current --strip-c89 behaviour), and find a new name for the eol-stripping flag. Thoughts? Regards, Malcolm

Sven Panne

15 Sep 15 Sep

4:49 a.m.

On Friday 14 September 2007 22:06, Malcolm Wallace wrote:

...

Hmm. There could be a better solution. Since no released version of cpphs has yet had the behaviour of stripping C eol // comments, (only the darcs version) there is still time to change the meaning of the flags. In particular, we could swap --strip back to mean what it used to mean (the current --strip-c89 behaviour), and find a new name for the eol-stripping flag.

That seems to be the right way IMHO. Even if Cabal could include a hack around the problem, we don't want to impose this ugliness upon other build systems people might use. Cheers, S.

Malcolm Wallace

17 Sep 17 Sep

10:03 a.m.

Sven Panne wrote:

...

On Friday 14 September 2007 22:06, Malcolm Wallace wrote:

...
In particular, we could swap --strip back to mean what it used to mean (the current --strip-c89 behaviour), and find a new name for the eol-stripping flag.

That seems to be the right way IMHO.

OK, done. The new option name is --strip-eol, and --strip-c89 is gone. Regards, Malcolm

Benjamin Franksen

18 Sep 18 Sep

1:42 p.m.

Malcolm Wallace wrote:

...

Sven Panne wrote:

...
On Friday 14 September 2007 22:06, Malcolm Wallace wrote:

...
In particular, we could swap --strip back to mean what it used to mean (the current --strip-c89 behaviour), and find a new name for the eol-stripping flag.

That seems to be the right way IMHO.

OK, done. The new option name is --strip-eol, and --strip-c89 is gone.

I'd rather name the flag --strip-cc or something like that, indicating that it refers to C++ comments (--strip-cpp might be misleading, though). Cheers Ben

Malcolm Wallace

19 Sep 19 Sep

8:25 a.m.

Benjamin Franksen wrote:

...

...
OK, done. The new option name is --strip-eol, and --strip-c89 is gone.

I'd rather name the flag --strip-cc or something like that, indicating that it refers to C++ comments (--strip-cpp might be misleading, though).

How about --strip-c++ then? Regards, Malcolm

6454

Age (days ago)

6460

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

12 comments

6 participants

participants (6)

Benjamin Franksen
Duncan Coutts
Ian Lynagh
Malcolm Wallace
Ross Paterson
Sven Panne

cpphs and C++-style comments

tags

participants (6)