Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 17:31:05 +0200:
> Branko Čibej wrote on Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 15:59:16 +0100:
> > On 23.11.2012 15:35, Julian Foad wrote:
> > > In file included from subversion/libsvn_delta/compat.c:36:0:
> > > ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is not defined
> > > --
> > > In file included from subversion/libsvn_delta/svndiff.c:31:0:
> > > ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is not defined
> > > --
> > > In file included from subversion/libsvn_subr/auth.c:34:0:
> > > ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is not defined
> > > --
> > > In file included from subversion/libsvn_subr/cache-inprocess.c:30:0:
> > > ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is not defined
> > > --
> > > In file included from subversion/libsvn_subr/cache-membuffer.c:31:0:
> > > ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is not defined
> > > --
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > (The relevant line number looks like 235 in my editor not 236.)
> >
> > Julian, we've had this discussion before. I'm not going to change the
> > accepted way of checking autoconf macros just because you insist on
> > turning on warnings about perfectly valid and 15-years standard
> > behaviour of the C preprocessor. That by the way is not even turned on
> > in maintainer-mode.
>
> The warning is useful to catch spelling errors in macros (example: '#if
> APR_HAS_IPv6').
>
> +1 to changing the code to always define SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER,
> as either 0 or 1. I see no downside to that, do you?
Put another way: saying that '#if UNDEFINED_MACRO' is well-defined just
says the code is correct. Hence, changing the code to avoid that
construct is about robustness, or clarity, rahter than correctness.
Received on 2012-11-23 16:43:55 CET