On 9/20/16, Trevor Saunders <tbsau...@tbsaunde.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:13:41AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 09/21/2016 01:09 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>> >
>> > I thought I remember discussing this macro with you, but see what was
>> > checked in I'll believe I'm thinking of something similar but
>> > different.
>> I think this here was an earlier patch and the one we were discussing
>> recently was the other macro with a similar name.
>> > Any way sorry about the dumb bug
>> Stuff like this happens, no worries. But I've seen it happen a lot over the
>> years, and maybe you can see in this an explanation of why I'm often not the
>> most enthusiastic supporter of pure cleanup patches (those not motivated by
>> more substantial patches depending on them).
> yeah, there's always some risk, though I also believe if you define
> something as cleaning up then it has some value compared to pointless
> permutation.  Ironically I think one of the big motivating reasons to
> remove ifdefs is to remove a source of bustage.
> Trev

This is kinda changing the topic a bit, but if removing ifdefs is to
remove bustage, maybe GCC should start compiling with -Wundef to
ensure that the ifdef removal doesn't actually introduce any new
bustage? Glibc started using -Wundef for that reason:


Reply via email to