New parser branch (Was: Dumping the source DOM?)

Steven T. Hatton hattons at
Thu Jul 14 16:00:10 UTC 2005

On Thursday 14 July 2005 02:44, Vladimir Prus wrote:

> It appears that r++ messes up compiler identification macros. See
> r++.macros:
>    #define __GNUC__                 3
>    //#define __GNUC_MINOR__           4
> This defines __GNUC__ but does not defines __GNUC_MINOR__, which blows up
> Boost's compiler workarounds.

Looks like progress to me.  I have to say, it seems a bit unfair to expect a 
developer to go out of his way to support a CVS build of a code base which is 
not part of the immediate scope of his project.  I think your attempt to run 
r++ against Boost is worthwhile.  It looks like you may have found a bug 
worth addressing.

Have you read any of the r++ code?  I challenge you to find a place where 
efficiency could be improved without loss of understandability.  I can't say 
that I understand all of what it does, but I was impressed by the fact that I 
_could_ understand much of it, and, at the same time, it seems highly 
optimized by design.  After you've looked at Roberto's code, take a look at 
the GCC counterpart.


More information about the KDevelop-devel mailing list