On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:48:04PM -0400, Eric Gallager wrote: > On 9/20/16, Trevor Saunders <tbsau...@tbsaunde.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:13:41AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > >> On 09/21/2016 01:09 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote: > >> > > >> > I thought I remember discussing this macro with you, but see what was > >> > checked in I'll believe I'm thinking of something similar but > >> > different. > >> > >> I think this here was an earlier patch and the one we were discussing > >> recently was the other macro with a similar name. > >> > >> > Any way sorry about the dumb bug > >> > >> Stuff like this happens, no worries. But I've seen it happen a lot over the > >> years, and maybe you can see in this an explanation of why I'm often not > >> the > >> most enthusiastic supporter of pure cleanup patches (those not motivated by > >> more substantial patches depending on them). > > > > yeah, there's always some risk, though I also believe if you define > > something as cleaning up then it has some value compared to pointless > > permutation. Ironically I think one of the big motivating reasons to > > remove ifdefs is to remove a source of bustage. > > > > Trev > > > > > This is kinda changing the topic a bit, but if removing ifdefs is to > remove bustage, maybe GCC should start compiling with -Wundef to > ensure that the ifdef removal doesn't actually introduce any new > bustage? Glibc started using -Wundef for that reason:
Well, the goal is to reduce conditional compilation so no #if either, and in other contexts undefined doesn't implicitly convert, so it shouldn't be as important. It might be good to do, but I suspect you'd have to fix things up, and it just doesn't seem as important as other things that can be done. Trev > > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-02/msg00828.html > https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-08/msg00751.html
