On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Ismail Dönmez wrote: | Sunday 13 January 2008 17:41:03 tarihinde Gabriel Dos Reis sunlar? yazm?st?: | > Ismail Dönmez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | Hi again, | > | | > | Wednesday 09 January 2008 00:28:54 tarihinde Manuel López-Ibáñez sunlar? | > | | > | yazm?st?: | > | > For your particular example, you could open a regression bug against | > | > 4.3 that says: | > | > * '"foo' redefined" is not mandated by the standard or it is not | > | > serious enough, so it should not be a pedwarn just a normal warning; | > | > or | > | | > | Looks like this is actually mandated by standard :-( , thats what I am | > | told on #gcc anyway :) | > | > #define foo bar | > #define foo baz | > | > is asking for trouble -- one should look for fixing the source of that | > inconsistency. | | That was just an example,
I understood that. | real life testcase shows that problem stems from | autoconf and its config.h. Projects end up defining things like HAVE_STDLIB_H | twice which is not harmful at all but now causes an error if g++ is used. The problem is that any semantics of the above -- that is not an error or silent ignorance -- is order-dependent, which is worse to debug. -- Gaby
