This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [Patch] libstdc++/29989

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:34:37 -0800
Subject: Re: [Patch] libstdc++/29989
References: <4571E7A4.8060008@suse.de> <20061204173953.GK21441@synopsys.com> <45745E9E.1020402@suse.de>

Paolo Carlini wrote:

>> Right, but I'm kind of wondering whether this cruft was introduced to
>> work around something that should have been fixed by fixincludes (does
>> some platform have headers that define min and max as macros?)

VxWorks has min and max macros in the user namespace.  And, fixincludes
isn't really a viable solution since people depend on the macros being
available for C code.  I completely acknowledge that the OS is
non-conformant, but it would be nice if it worked.

I believe that we may have fixed this in some places by using:

  T (min)(T, T)

so that function-like macros did not affect the declarations.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

References:
- [Patch] libstdc++/29989
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [Patch] libstdc++/29989
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: [Patch] libstdc++/29989
  - From: Paolo Carlini

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]