Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(770)

Issue 822813003: Be explicit about not wanting a trigraph. (Closed)

Created:
6 years ago by Nico
Modified:
5 years, 11 months ago
CC:
chromium-reviews, wfh+watch_chromium.org
Base URL:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master
Target Ref:
refs/pending/heads/master
Project:
chromium
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Be explicit about not wanting a trigraph. Both cl.exe and clang-cl don't use trigraphs on Windows by default, but clang still warns about them. Since the standard does include trigraphs, fix the code to not (accidentally) include a trigraph rather than siliencing the warning. BUG=82385 Committed: https://crrev.com/34fead5eae3de03b4b63acbdbe8491f75e353232 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#309526}

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 : . #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+3 lines, -1 line) Patch
M sandbox/win/src/win_utils_unittest.cc View 1 1 chunk +3 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 9 (2 generated)
Nico
6 years ago (2014-12-23 00:09:09 UTC) #2
cpu_(ooo_6.6-7.5)
lgtm so we can't use raw strings yet?
6 years ago (2014-12-23 01:59:32 UTC) #3
Nico
On 2014/12/23 01:59:32, cpu (ooo till jan 5) wrote: > lgtm > > so we ...
6 years ago (2014-12-23 02:02:28 UTC) #4
commit-bot: I haz the power
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/822813003/20001
6 years ago (2014-12-23 02:03:37 UTC) #6
commit-bot: I haz the power
Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)
6 years ago (2014-12-23 02:50:39 UTC) #7
commit-bot: I haz the power
Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as https://crrev.com/34fead5eae3de03b4b63acbdbe8491f75e353232 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#309526}
6 years ago (2014-12-23 02:51:35 UTC) #8
Nico
5 years, 11 months ago (2014-12-30 21:44:26 UTC) #9
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2014/12/23 02:02:28, Nico wrote:
> On 2014/12/23 01:59:32, cpu (ooo till jan 5) wrote:
> > lgtm
> > 
> > so we can't use raw strings yet?
> 
> Would that help? I thought trigraphs are handled before tokenizing. After a
> short search,
>
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6855149/are-trigraph-substitutions-reverte...
> seems to back that up. 

(Mostly note to self: [lex.pptoken]p3 does say that trigraphs are reverted back
in raw strings. This just doesn't happen if the raw string is built by
token-pasting, which is the case in that stack overflow post.)

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698