In message <200311071541.hA7FfqZX007747@...
> of Fri, 7 Nov
2003 16:41:52 in , Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...
>Walter Briscoe wrote:
>Since it has taken so long to run into this problem it seems that very
>few compilers have a problem with long lines.
The problem is in the debugger rather than the compiler. I doubt if 1 in
100 vim users run vim through their debugger.
>> >For this compiler we could disable the Lisp function, that should work
>> >around the problem.
>> I don't think so. The problem is that a source line is longer than 255
>> bytes. In the dim and distant past, I worked on VaxC symbol display and
>> that is my hazy memory. Can Jim check?
>Do you mean that when you put a long line in between "#ifdef asdf" and
>"#endif" the compiler will still refuse to compile the file?
No! The code compiles happily. The debugger can't handle it.
It is a long time ago. Jim can confirm or contradict what Bram and I
expect to happen.
>> This does not work for the other 2 long strings. We could split the
>> definitions into chunks and load the data in option.c. I don't like
>> doing that as it requires the programmer to do more work. However, it
>> does seem it will work and fit all constraints. What does Bram think?
>I don't like making the code more difficult for a rare compiler. But if
>this code prevents people from using Vim on a specific platform, I could
>include a patch that fixes this (if it's tested).
I intend to eliminate long lines to deal with the vagaries of a rare
compiler. Like Bram, I don't have that compiler. I do have others and
will obviously put any proposed patch through those before submitting
it. I will check the fix works for me. I will also get Jim to confirm it
hits his problem. I can do no more. Watch this space ;-)