From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 948053858C66; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 11:05:53 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 948053858C66 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1709291153; bh=gDl293cjHDCJ9XvIHrd4KuAE22Lxm6ExJY60zYxYg5Q=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=xja3ozvsICc/fKIG3G/78eb51W5WcL8b2/aDj8SGUJjHFEdapMj2r1RgtxtPQYEm8 vuooZEq7+dT7lHDHdmfSvblUWLJN+flDhMJDk1E/ydYw+LbTaTnqzYkbJsJug4G+78 uJX4S/gzhnYiNBmJjq+56eouZZ6Rymy/h5hRjt6I= From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/114181] issubnormal is a macro Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 11:05:51 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114181 --- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely --- Libc headers define lots of macros, we don't #undef them in C++ headers unl= ess they use the name of a function defined by the C++ library (because C++ says its library functions must be real functions and must not be hidden by macr= os). If you want to provide an implementation of issubnormal (e.g. as boost::issubnormal) then you need to do: #include #undef issubnormal I don't think it's a libstdc++ bug that we don't #undef non-standard macros. It's certainly not a GCC component=3Dc bug that Glibc defines a macro in its . So there's no GCC bug here. Like Andrew said, iff we need to define std::issubnormal then we'll #undef = it, but we're not going to do that until we need to.=