This is the mail archive of the glibc-bugs@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug libc/25214] ctype.h performance (and potentially behavior) depends on include order


https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25214

--- Comment #2 from Travis Downs <travis.downs at gmail dot com> ---
Yes, I'm compiling as C++, and I should have made that clear from the start.

In C, the flow is totally different and toupper/tolower are macros, not
functions (as you pointed out).

Although I'm compiling as C++, the only headers I'm including are <stdlib.h>
and <ctype.h>. I'm not sure exactly where __NO_CTYPE is getting defined in this
case, but in another case I looked at (this time including C++ headers like
<algorithm>, the __NO_CTYPE definition came from <bits/os_defines.h>).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]