delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Wed, 17 May 2000 11:26:26 -0400 |
Message-Id: | <200005171526.LAA09310@envy.delorie.com> |
From: | DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> |
To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
In-reply-to: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000517101928.4709F-100000@is> (message from Eli |
Zaretskii on Wed, 17 May 2000 10:19:47 +0300 (IDT)) | |
Subject: | Re: Minor GCC & DJGPP header problem |
References: | <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000517101928 DOT 4709F-100000 AT is> |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > > > I see two solutions: > > 1) as it is done with NULL in stdio.h: > > #undef offsetof > > #define offsetof we_dont_care_about_previous_def > > > > 2) as gcc does > > #ifndef offsetof > > #define offsetof we_care_about_previous_def > > #endif > > > > Which one (or noone) is OK? > > IMHO, the former. In this particular case, the two definitions are > identical, but it might not always be like that. > > DJ? Neither is really acceptable. GCC shouldn't conflict with conforming system headers.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |