Open
Conversation
|
Seems like you could also just not flag the beginning of a char literal if the previous char was a digit, or something like that? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi,
unifdef works great with my C++20 code base! There is just a minor issue with C++14 quoted integer literals: "Unterminated char literal", e.g. when a C++ source file contains:
int num = 1'000'000;The patch adds support und appears to work fine in my tests. Still it would be great if you could give it a quick review:
When quotes are detected inside an integer literal, the patch skips two characters until after the quote. This seems against the spirit of a function named "skipcomment()", because (part of) an integer literal is skipped, not a comment. Still I believe this should be fine, as the code calling skipcomment() only cares about preprocessor statements, and integer literals are not that. Is this assumption correct?
Best, Zenju