[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Handling of #undef FOO
From: |
Ralf Corsepius |
Subject: |
Re: Handling of #undef FOO |
Date: |
Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:25:10 +0100 |
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 13:10 +0200, Ismail Dönmez wrote:
> Sunday 06 January 2008 08:30:14 tarihinde Paul Eggert şunları yazmıştı:
> > Ismail Dönmez <address@hidden> writes:
> > > but it should be defined like this,
> > >
> > > #ifndef FOO
> > > #define FOO
> > > #endif
> >
> > Why should it be defined like that? Typically, config.h is supposed
> > to define FOO; if something else is defining FOO first, that's a
> > problem with the "something else", not with config.h.
>
> Because otherwise it breaks with gcc 4.3 where FOO is defined multiple times,
> see http://www.cyrius.com/journal/gcc/gcc-4.3-pedwarn.html . I already hit
> this in multiple apps due to HAVE_STDLIB_H and such common config defs.
So far, I've only seen this happening with packages which happen commit
the mistake to install config.h's or which expose supposed-to-be private
headers.
Can you provide a real world example for which this happens?
Ralf
- Handling of #undef FOO, Ismail Dönmez, 2008/01/05
- Re: Handling of #undef FOO, Paul Eggert, 2008/01/06
- Re: Handling of #undef FOO, Ismail Dönmez, 2008/01/06
- Re: Handling of #undef FOO,
Ralf Corsepius <=
- Re: Handling of #undef FOO, Ismail Dönmez, 2008/01/07
- Re: Handling of #undef FOO, Ralf Corsepius, 2008/01/07
- Re: Handling of #undef FOO, Ismail Dönmez, 2008/01/07
- Re: Handling of #undef FOO, Eric Blake, 2008/01/07
- Re: Handling of #undef FOO, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/01/07
- Re: Handling of #undef FOO, Ismail Dönmez, 2008/01/07
- Re: Handling of #undef FOO, Ismail Dönmez, 2008/01/07