On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 5:59 PM Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> wrote: > > Using the same include guard define name is preferred. > > Why was anything other than that considered?
I don't see the point of making the include guard an actual part of the "API". Consumers should not depend on it being named $WHATEVER. That is a hack. Include guards are an implementation detail and making that stable actively stops you from doing things like using #pragma once or fixing the __DOUBLE_UNDERSCORE_H__ stuff. So I would vote for not changing this, downstream consumers that rely on __PROCESSOR_BIND_H__ should be fixed, downstream. -- Pedro -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#106610): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/106610 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/99567569/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
