On 2/20/2014 4:45 PM, Peter Dufault wrote: > On Feb 20, 2014, at 16:11 , Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: > >> +#if __RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__ >> I think we decided to prefer the more explicit "#if defined(...)" for >> checking for CPP defines. >> Also, what is this define checking against / where is it defined? > I think "#if defined()" isn't more explicit unless the test is "#if > defined(__RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H_DEFINED__)" because of the possibility of: > > #define __RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__ 0 > > I just hit this the other day. I personally don't like #ifdef. > > "#if defined(__RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__) && (__RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__ != > 0)" addresses all possibilities and is kind of like wrapping macros in "do .. > while (0)" guards, but it's verbose and odd. I have nothing against paranoia but this is unfortunately a pattern encouraged by autoconf feature macros. If we can come to some agreement on the pattern, then it should be possible to write a script to convert from old to new pattern.
But arbitrarily using a different pattern in new code isn't good either. I would rather see a massive sed script to fix them all in one sweep. > Peter > ----------------- > Peter Dufault > HD Associates, Inc. Software and System Engineering > > > _______________________________________________ > rtems-devel mailing list > rtems-devel@rtems.org > http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel -- Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com On-Line Applications Research Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 Support Available (256) 722-9985 _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list rtems-devel@rtems.org http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
