RE: [sv-bc] Mantis 1090: `undefineall

What about macros defined by both a compiler directive and also a
command-line switch (possibly with different values)?

Shalom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:12 PM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@eda-stds.org; Feldman, Yulik
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Mantis 1090: `undefineall
> 
> 
> >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.com

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.