From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Glenn Morris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17681: 24.3.91; "Arithmetic Error" in hide-ifdef mode when using shift operators Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 03:17:09 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87zjhtn6xq.fsf@engster.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1402039097 8685 80.91.229.3 (6 Jun 2014 07:18:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 07:18:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17681@debbugs.gnu.org, David Engster To: Luke Lee Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 06 09:18:10 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WsoPh-0002PZ-SI for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:18:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45574 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WsoPh-0002Ky-Ev for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 03:18:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55227) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WsoPc-0002HS-8Q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 03:18:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WsoPb-0007Xo-Cw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 03:18:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:47576) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WsoPb-0007Xk-0o for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 03:18:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WsoPa-0003eE-GS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 03:18:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <87zjhtn6xq.fsf@engster.org> Resent-From: Glenn Morris Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 07:18:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17681 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 17681-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17681.140203903413922 (code B ref 17681); Fri, 06 Jun 2014 07:18:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17681) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jun 2014 07:17:14 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46453 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WsoOn-0003cQ-Ra for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 03:17:14 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:43567 ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WsoOl-0003cE-Jt for 17681@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 03:17:12 -0400 Original-Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WsoOk-0003nI-4D; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 03:17:10 -0400 X-Spook: Etacs Hugo Chavez Juiliett Class Submarine Guantanamo X-Ran: hNq~QIOXQM-?SoS5mubX'0v5_tn)(7>u1kb)E@"e7MnHNQ-w51*aSkW6.s:szUmE4zol_w X-Hue: blue X-Attribution: GM User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:90107 Archived-At: Luke Lee wrote: >>I think he already sent me a patch fixing this problem > > Yes, I think my new patch fixed that problem. Is this patch posted anywhere? > However, if you're trying to hide jiffies.h it will eventually failed > at some other place due to the "unsigned long" integer postfix (i.e. > the "UL" in 100000UL), which hideif still consider it a "TODO". > > #define TICK_USEC ((1000000UL + USER_HZ/2) / USER_HZ) When you say fail, do you mean it will give an error? If so, why not ignore-errors around these evaluations?