[ntp:hackers] Recent C99-isms
mayer at ntp.org
Tue Jan 6 15:09:57 UTC 2015
On 1/6/2015 3:24 AM, Martin Burnicki wrote:
> Are you OK with the MISSING_ approach, or would you prefer the HAVE_
> approach as it is used with most other conditionals?
> With the MISSING_ approach it is eventually sufficient to update the
> Windows-specific config.h file, and no automake stuff is required unless
> there are Unix versions which also need to define MISSING_.
> With the HAVE_ approach you *have to* update the automake stuff to be
> sure HAVE_ is defined for most platforms.
> BTW, I was pretty astonished that Danny agreed with my proposal. I'm not
> sure if that ever happened before. ;-))
We aim to please...
I generally prefer HAVE_ macros but in this case it might make sense to
use MISSING_ since eventually it will go away and there would then be no
need to check for it in the other environments.
More information about the hackers