This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define PTR_MANGLE and PTR_DEMANGLE unconditionally.
- From: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:52:41 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define PTR_MANGLE and PTR_DEMANGLE unconditionally.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131031194113 dot GA30302 at domone dot podge> <5272B2DA dot 8090807 at redhat dot com> <20131105093831 dot GA21063 at domone dot podge> <8738na1zx6 dot fsf at igel dot home> <20131106122419 dot GA9792 at domone dot podge> <527BBF14 dot 8050408 at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:25:56AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 11/06/2013 07:24 AM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 07:11:49PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> OndÅej BÃlka <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >>> Moving these would involve creating a new header. A posibility would be
> >>> a defaults header where we would move various compatibility definitions.
> >> That file could be sysdeps/generic/sysdep.h.
> > We should first make clear ordering issues. As for PTR_MANGLE a generic
> > comes before PTR_MANGLE is defined so we need extra undef before each
> > definition.
> > With file included as last these will not be needed.
> > Also when we expand this I am bit afraid of inconsistencies when half
> > can be defined before this file and other half after it is included.
> What inconsistencies would there be?
> It is true that we might need #undef FOO before you define your own,
> but that's normal for all macros that have early defined defaults and
> it's not bad as fars I care.
For early defaults you cannot supply alternative implementation
-DALTERNATIVE= or you need another macro that signals default.
With late default this is not problem.
This is more matter of consistently defining defaults early/late and