This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [patch] Fix for BZ #15366 (ignore __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS, __STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS)
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, richardsmith at google dot com
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:04:28 -0400
- Subject: Re: [patch] Fix for BZ #15366 (ignore __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS, __STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS)
- References: <ye6qhaj75q8n dot fsf at elbrus2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <516CFD67 dot 2010009 at redhat dot com> <CALoOobMkrkFtqeNWF7dhEfnYV8=hNUvwKq+X4md=8mDfawd5vA at mail dot gmail dot com> <516D71F0 dot 5090500 at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 05:44:48PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 04/16/2013 05:42 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>Should we really apply this change retroactively to C++98 and C++03?
> >I just checked: neither C++98, nor C++03, mention <stdint.h>,
> >__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS, or __STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS.
> I'm just wondering if whatever reason prompted the inclusion of the
> C++ kludge into C99 might still apply today when compiling C++98 (or
> C++03) code. Why wouldn't the rationale continue to apply?
I don't think real-world code was ever a consideration. It was some
stupid thing about the C++ committee not wanting them (being allergic
to macros?) and the preprocessor conditionals were to satisfy them.
Can anyone confirm if this is correct?