Am 25.04.2012 15:18, schrieb Daniel Shahaf:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 18:15:22 +0300:
>> stefan2_at_apache.org wrote on Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 13:42:44 -0000:
>>> Author: stefan2
>>> Date: Sun Apr 15 13:42:44 2012
>>> New Revision: 1326337
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1326337&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Fix a macro redefinition warning for SYNCHRONIZE under Windows.
>>>
>>> * subversion/libsvn_subr/svn_named_atomic.c
>>> (SYNCHRONIZE): undefine pre-existing definitions
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>> subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_subr/svn_named_atomic.c
>>>
>>> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_subr/svn_named_atomic.c
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_subr/svn_named_atomic.c?rev=1326337&r1=1326336&r2=1326337&view=diff
>>> ==============================================================================
>>> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_subr/svn_named_atomic.c (original)
>>> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_subr/svn_named_atomic.c Sun Apr 15 13:42:44 2012
>>> @@ -88,6 +88,12 @@
>>> */
>>> #define SHM_NAME_SUFFIX "Shm"
>>>
>>> +/* Prevent macro re-definition warning (on Windows in particluar).
>>> + */
>>> +#ifdef SYNCHRONIZE
>>> +#undef SYNCHRONIZE
>>> +#endif
>> Is this a safe change? Experimenting shows that if later in the file
>> a macro is used which is defined in terms of SYNCHRONIZE, the file-local
>> definition (below the diff context) would be used even for macros
>> defined while the previous definition was effective.
>>
>> Shouldn't you rename the macro?
>>
> With Greg's +1, and since this was cluttering my mailbox, I went ahead
> and made this change in r1330268. Let me know if it's not ok.
Yup. That one looks ok. Thanks!
-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2012-04-27 07:49:49 CEST