This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib 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] | |
Jeff? Thanks, Corinna On Jan 3 16:41, Joe Seymour wrote: > Users can enable assertions in newlib/libc/include/sys/reent.h by > defining the macro DEBUG. As DEBUG is a relatively obvious and general > purpose name, it is also used by other projects. I've seen it used by > the Atmel Software Framework (ASF) and some TI Energia projects. A web > search finds a few more examples: > > https://forum.pjrc.com/threads/19916-reent-h-space-problems-or-just-my-pc > http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=151655.0 > > Actually, these are all examples of projects that have been seen to fail > to build with the following error: > > > include\sys\reent.h:458:10: error: #if with no expression > > This occurs when DEBUG is defined but has no value. Which seems to > happen with the following test case: > > > #define DEBUG > > #include <sys/reent.h> > > Notably, I don't see an error if I remove the #define and instead pass > -DDEBUG (with no value) to my gcc build [msp430-elf-gcc (GCC) 7.0.0 > 20161220]. > > My initial reaction to seeing the error message was that this was a bug > in reent.h, which should use #ifdef DEBUG instead. Unfortunately if you > do that then "#define DEBUG 0" and -DDEBUG=0 result in debug being > turned on, which seems undesirable. This leads me to believe that the > use of #if DEBUG is deliberate and not considered a bug? > > I mention this here because I couldn't find any previous discussion of > it on this list, and as it has been discussed elsewhere I think there's > value in having a definitive statement about it here. > > Again for the record, I'll ask whether "#if DEBUG" could be changed to > "#if _SYS_REENT_H_DEBUG", or similar? That would avoid the error and the > naming conflict. I'm assuming that the examples listed above aren't > trying to turn newlib assertions on. I suspect that at the very least > DEBUG has been used for long enough that there's a stronger argument for > keeping it the same than for changing it to something else? > > Thanks, > > Joe Seymour -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer Red Hat
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |