On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 11:48:48PM +0100, Anthony Mallet wrote: > Hi, > > I have some code that defines these methods in a C++ class: > int32_t major() const > int32_t minor() const > (for the context: this is in protobuf generated code from a message > that has major/minor fields). > > The generated code fails to compile because it conflicts with major(3) > macro and minor(3) macros from sys/types.h: > > #define major(x) ((devmajor_t)(((uint32_t)(x) & 0x000fff00) >> 8)) > #define minor(x) ... > > Do major(3) and minor(3) really need to be macros?
I think maybe a better question is: do they really need to be in <sys/types.h>? They seem like the kind of thing that more properly belongs in <sys/param.h>, whether or not that's traditional. (Standards have things to say about the namespace pollution allowed to <sys/types.h>, but even regardless of that it's supposed to be reasonably safe to add <sys/types.h> to virtually any source file.) -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
