[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lmi] Forcing linking of the library modules (again)

From: Vadim Zeitlin
Subject: Re: [lmi] Forcing linking of the library modules (again)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:49:35 +0200

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 11:35:48 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> On 2014-10-04 22:20Z, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 21:56:09 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
GC> > 
GC> > GC> On 2014-10-04 14:52Z, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > GC> > On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 13:20:57 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> 
GC> [...]
GC> > GC> I'm puzzled. I think I preserved the original's substance faithfully, 
GC> > GC> 
GC> > GC> >  But I'd like to notice that there is a small problem with the new
GC> > GC> > LMI_FORCE_LINKING_{IN,EX}_SITU() macros: they are inconsistent in 
GC> > GC> > handling of the subsequent semicolon as the former requires it, 
while the
GC> > GC> > latter does not.
GC> I think we went astray here.

 No, not we, just me. Sorry for misleading you, I misread the first macro

GC> We were discussing the original commit:
GC> Wouldn't it be correct to say instead that neither macro required
GC> a semicolon?

 Yes, this is indeed correct.

GC> It seems to me that Vaclav had it right all along.

 I'd still prefer to have (mandatory) semicolons after macros rather than
not to have them at all, but it's a slight preference and probably not
worth spending even more time on.

 Sorry again for wasting your time on this,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]