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: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-02/msg00828.html https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-08/msg00751.html