This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@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] |
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 07:54:24PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 22 August 2014 19:20, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> wrote: > >> +#ifndef _LIBC > >> +# define NOT_IN(lib) (0) > >> +#endif > > > > I'm not especially convinced by the readability improvement of NOT_IN, and I'm > > particularly confused by a NOT_IN that defaults to false. > > That's not the default definition; the default one is in > libc-symbols.h. That's a fallback definition when building outside > libc, but I'm thinking of getting rid of it because it will break > namespace tests for the headers. Oh, and it's confusing because it's wrong. I should probably get some sleep. Siddhesh
Attachment:
pgp7k4jmDnnuw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |