Re: [Patch] libstdc++/29989

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@suse.de> writes:

[...]

| >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?)
| >
| 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.

-- Gaby