|Pre-Parsers email@example.com (Jim Granville) (2000-09-08)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (Randall Hyde) (2000-09-09)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers email@example.com (2000-09-13)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (2000-09-15)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers email@example.com (2000-09-21)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (Hans-Bernhard Broeker) (2000-10-08)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers email@example.com.OZ.AU (2000-10-10)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (2000-10-12)|
|Re: Pre-Parsers email@example.com (2000-10-12)|
|Date:||15 Sep 2000 01:39:51 -0400|
|Organization:||Deja.com - Before you buy.|
firstname.lastname@example.org (VBDis) wrote:
> Im Artikel 00-09-065, Jim Granville
> <email@example.com> schreibt:
> > I am looking into pre-parsers, esp those that also include
> >MACRO capability, with the usual define/ifdef/endif.
[snipped good description about preprocessor implementation]
> Some features can require more processing, like the evaluation of
> sizeof(x) in C. In this case all type and variable declarations must
> also be stored by the parser, so that the size of every declared
> symbol can be evaluated in conditional expressions. At the same time
> nested scopes must be implemented, so that the parser can find the
> appropriate definition of a symbol within the current nesting of
> subroutine declarations etc. Such features are closesly related to a
> specific compiler, and that's why you'll never find a "general"
> preprocessor for the current C standard. Even the stand-alone
> preprocessors, shipped with some C compilers, may be usable for some
> general preprocessing, but may fail to produce correct output for a
> different C compiler.
Why do you need to parse 'sizeof' if all you are interested is a
preprocessor (macro capability)? Or do you need some other capability?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.