i don't know if you're trying to be funny...
but what's between the definition of N1 and the undef of A may be a very
complex. it's just simplified for demonstration.
> Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 00:42:16 -0500
> From: de...@adacore.com
> To: ren_zokuke...@ho
> i don't know if you're trying to be funny...
>
> but what's between the definition of N1 and the undef of A may be a very
> complex. it's just simplified for demonstration.
It's not good programming practice to have a macro (in this case A) have
two different values, with an #undef between then
On 31/12/11 10:44, R A wrote:
alright, here's another example why eval is a good idea:
#define A 17 #define B 153 #define N1
((A + B)/2) /* intended was (17 + 153)/2 */
#undef A #define A 230 #define N2 ((A + B)/2) /*
intended was (230 + 153)/2 */
prin
On 01/01/2012 12:42 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/31/2011 4:44 AM, R A wrote:
alright, here's another example why eval is a good idea:
#define A 17
#define B 153
#define N1 ((A + B)/2) /* intended was (17 + 153)/2 */
#undef A
#define A 230
#define N2
Sandra Loosemore writes:
>
> I'm still finding my way around LTO; can anyone who's more familiar
> with this help narrow down where to look for the cause of this? I
> don't even know if this is a compiler or ld bug at this point. I'm
I would look into the interaction between the LTO plugin and
