This issue has been automatically converted from the original issue lists and some formatting may not have been preserved.
Authors: Clive D.W. Feather <clive@demon.net>, UK C Panel
Date: 2001-09-07
Submitted against: C99
Status: Fixed
Fixed in: C99 TC2
Cross-references: 0303, 0448
Converted from: summary-c99.htm, dr_250.htm
Consider the code:
#define nothing(x) // Nothing /* Case 1 */
nothing (
#include <stdio.h>
)
/* Case 2 */
nothing (
#nonstandard
)
6.10.3#11 reads in part:
If there are sequences of preprocessing tokens within the list of arguments that would otherwise act as preprocessing directives, the behavior is undefined.
This clearly covers case 1. However, it is not clear whether or not case 2 is a preprocessing directive. It is a "non-directive", but is that also a directive ? If case 2 is a directive, it is undefined behaviour. If it is not, then case 2 is strictly-conforming and macro-expands to nothing.
Since non-directives are only valid as extensions, it might be more sensible for them to behave as directives do and make the behaviour undefined in this case.
In 6.10.3#11, change the last sentence to:
If there are sequences of preprocessing tokens within the list of arguments that would otherwise act as preprocessing directives or as non-directives (that is, the first pre-processing token on a line is a
#), the behavior is undefined.
Comment from WG14 on 2002-03-06:
The Committee believes the Standard is correct (preprocessing directive includes non-directive), therefore, the anwser to the question on this is yes.
In 6.10 #2, italicize the term "preprocessing directive".
In 6.10.3 paragraph 11, last sentence. After "preprocessing directives", add the following footnote.
Despite the name, a non-directive is a preprocessing directive.