Possible fundamental flaw in order of pre-processing?

[SimonFraser11]

Using the following code snippet:

#define TARGS4 T1,T2,T3,T4
#define FOOIMPL(T__CLASS, TARGS) void foo(const T__CLASS<TARGS>& x) { }
#define FOOIMPL_4(T__CLASS)      FOOIMPL(T__CLASS, TARGS4)
FOOIMPL_4(y)

both gcc and Visual C++ give the following output:

void foo(const y<T1,T2,T3,T4>& x) {}

However CppCheck via simplecpp gives the following error:

[file.cpp:3]: (error) failed to expand 'FOOIMPL_4', Wrong number of parameters for macro 'FOOIMPL'

I'm unsure but this might be related to issues #40 , #79 and #109. Could it be that simplecpp is trying to expand pre-processor arguments too early?

[danmar]

Could it be that simplecpp is trying to expand pre-processor arguments too early?

Sure there is a problem to fix. My feeling is that this is very hard to get perfect. As far as I have seen, the rules are not always entirely consistent.

[danmar]

I closed wrong issue by mistake

[datadiode]

I think #292 was a duplicate of this.

[firewave]

1:
2: 
3: 
4: void foo ( const y < T1 , T2 , T3 , T4 > & x ) { }