Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #34695] fixed width int types without __attribute__()

[Joerg Wunsch]

As Georg-Johann Lay wrote:

> > OK, so what's wrong with writing
> > 
> > #if defined(__DOXYGEN__) || defined(LINT)
> > 
> > then?
> 
> LINT is the wrong name space; should be
> 
> __LINT or _LINT

I thought about that.  However, #ifdef LINT or #ifdef lint appears to
be what commonly has been used in the past.  So even if it's in the
application namespace, nobody in his right mind would gratuitously
define that macro in their application, and still expect it to run
normally. ;-)  It's a bit like adding a ``#define notdef 1'' to the top
of your application. :)

In case someone (who doesn't intend to run lint or has ever heard
about it) uses LINT in a non-macro context, the header files won't
even take notice of that.

But I'd pick whatever the lint users suggest here, I'm completely
neutral to it.  I'll feel more on the safe side by using __lint or
_LINT, yes, but if lint users say they've always been using #ifdef
LINT in the past, I'll buy that.

I just googled again.  I see ``#ifdef _lint'' sometimes (besides the
commonly seen #ifdef LINT or #ifdef lint), but that would still be in
the application namespaces.  Only __lint or _LINT are in the
implementation namespace.

Ah well, such a patch must be contributed by users who actively use
some lint tool, so they can verify the patch is really helpful.  I
won't start implementing something of my own without being able to
verify the result.

-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)