This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [Patch] libstdc++/29989
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Likewise, I *did* not see any pressure, until people started wondering
whether we should undef things everywhere, in <limits> too, for example.
All in all, since we don't have *any* other undefs anywhere, I think
it's far more consistent to take this small risk, early in Stage1. That
said, if you feel strongly about that, then I have no problem with you
reverting my patchlet and closing 29989 differently, simply as a
duplicate, for example.
| Right, in principle it's possible, or *was* possible, we are talking
| about very old cruft.
I seem to remember this was done because some platforms defined min
and max as macros; I can't remember from the top of my head. They are
reserved names anyway, so we *can* #undef them with no harm, and I
see no pressure in removing the #undefs.