>From: "Feldman, Yulik" <yulik.feldman@intel.com> >Probably the directive should undefine only the `define macros, because >otherwise the directive won't be too useful (since once the command line >macros are undefined, there will be no way to define them again). In >that case, it may be better to change the wording to refer to `define >explicitly, to avoid ambiguity. The proposed functionality is based on an existing implementation, which has been out there for many years. It follows Yulik's interpretation, and only undefines macros created with `define. It does not undefine macros defined on the command line. I determined this by testing the implementation. The purpose of the directive was to protect files from leftover macros defined in other source files, preventing dependencies between files and on compilation order. You may still wish to have macros defined on the command line that affect all files. If `undefineall affected those macros also, then it might become unusable. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.comReceived on Thu Aug 24 11:12:04 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 24 2006 - 11:12:15 PDT