stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Farid Zaripov" <>
Subject RE: svn commit: r597425 - in /incubator/stdcxx/branches/4.2.x: include/ansi/cwchar tests/strings/21.cwchar.cpp
Date Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:56:28 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [] 
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 2:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r597425 - in 
> /incubator/stdcxx/branches/4.2.x: include/ansi/cwchar 
> tests/strings/21.cwchar.cpp
> >   Yes, potentially here might be a problems.
> So maybe we need to rethink the original strategy of 
> #undefining the macros only when _RWSTD_STRICT_ANSI is 
> #defined. Or is there a way to prevent the expansion of the 
> macros in the using declarations?
> Btw., it occurs to me that if they are defined as function 
> macros (i.e., #define getwc() as opposed to #define getwc, 
> without the parentheses), mentioning getwc w/o an argument 
> list as is done in using declarations will not cause them to 
> be expanded. So the problem only exists for object macros 
> (i.e., those that aren't defined with parentheses).

  If the using directives are decorated by #ifndef _RWSTD_NO_funname
there would be no problems in case the STDCXX-451 issue resolved.

> >   BTW in ansi/cctype and ansi/cmath headers the masking macros are 
> > #undefined unconditionally.
> > 
> >  I think first we need to collect information how these macros are 
> > implemented on different platforms and then decide what 
> should we do.
> I suppose we should do that. But either way we decide we 
> should be consistent. So if there already are unconditional 
> #undefs in several other headers we might as well follow suit 
> with cwchar (and wchar.h) until we gather more information 
> and decide to change all the other headers to #undef all the 
> other macros conditionally.

  Agreed. So it's safe to #undefine getwc and putwc on MSVC.
The gcc on Linux doesn't #define these macros. What about
other platforms?


View raw message