Ok, so this doesn't have anything to do with "release" build vs debug build.
On 13-04-30 03:10 AM, John Emmas wrote: > In defence of Harfbuzz I should emphasize that at present, there's absolutely > no problem with the custom macro. It gets defined in 'hb-private.hh' which is > never exposed through any of the public header files. However, my fear is > that this is the kind of thing which tends to get get forgotten over time. In > the future, somebody could take the macro out of 'hb-private.hh' and > innocuously move it to some other header file - where it could end up causing > havoc. I totally agree with renaming it to HB_DEBUG. Otherwise, there's > effectively an accident waiting to happen. Such accidents don't happen in HarfBuzz. We're not a C++ library. Our public headers and other API / ABI are watched and designed extremely carefully. On 13-04-30 03:35 AM, Konstantin Ritt wrote: > True. But in case Harfbuzz gets compiled-in, DEBUG might be defined outside > of hb-private.hh, leading to HB build failure. HarfBuzz build won't fail in that case. The macro is redefined properly. I may go ahead and rename it, but neither of the above reasons are really valid. -- behdad http://behdad.org/ _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
