From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12647 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2004 01:22:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12626 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 01:22:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Aug 2004 01:22:49 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1Bv4Io-0005xk-FK for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:22:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:22:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] s/UINT_MAX/GDB_UINT_MAX/ ? Message-ID: <20040812012245.GA21493@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040811224640.GM25562@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040811224640.GM25562@gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00428.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:46:40PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > This is the last entity in config/powerpc/xm-aix4.h. The comment says: > > /* UINT_MAX is defined in as a decimal constant (4294967295) > which is too large to fit in a signed int when it is parsed by the > compiler, so it issues a diagnostic. Just undef it here so that we > use gdb's version in defs.h */ > #undef UINT_MAX > > So we have a collision between the macro defined by GDB and the macro > defined by the system. For recent enough versions of AIX, I don't think > the values are different, so we could look the other way and just remove > the #undef, and all things should work. But we still have this collision > and I think we should fix it. > > So I suggest we do an all-source rename of UINT_MAX et al to GDB_UINT_MAX, > or something like this. Unless the collision was expected (ie we want to > pick the system value when defined)? The latter is correct. Take a look at the definition, in defs.h. That's a buggy system... if you want to support it, we should detect it in autoconf. Otherwise, I doubt we'll really miss the #undef. -- Daniel Jacobowitz