From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EFA93858C5F for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 11:45:52 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 7EFA93858C5F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1676547952; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=37p5QkScm+X1Tf1eWGcTJJEVFauEhS3RoLiYssA0/eY=; b=Ut8fIDYkE2gWXfCV95BqjUj3LDLpK16pgFE+BbUvHfIXVMvsgePyq6IXO47hK62agVuOx7 MZyEFZQbwJ509vp1JtKoPesN11EyM2hU9Y+ShUS1i9lHr8BRY62RkBzBJHltU3aHmnb8nc qW3F9gvgW5XOjLA0fpIj8UYBekAVoMo= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-159-oKv0W6MlNd6TQ0hwRCkDjA-1; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 06:45:47 -0500 X-MC-Unique: oKv0W6MlNd6TQ0hwRCkDjA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71C27101A521; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 11:45:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.211]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 057B8140EBF6; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 11:45:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 31GBja9l2905121 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:45:36 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 31GBjUXW2905119; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:45:30 +0100 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:45:25 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Jonathan Wakely , libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [committed] libstdc++: Fix uses of non-reserved names in headers Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20230216103030.94868-1-jwakely@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.7 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 11:47:54AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:30:30AM +0000, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Tested powerpc64le-linux. Pushed to trunk. > > > > These should be backported too. > > > > -- >8 -- > > > > The non-reserved names 'val' and 'dest' were being used in our headers > > but haven't been added to the 17_intro/names.cc test. That's because > > they are used by and > > respecitvely on glibc-based systems. > > So, can't we for such problematic names add hacks, like some directory > which the test adds as -isystem before the standard ones and contains Or do it the way you just did for PSTL, by including all the non-libstdc++ headers used in libstdc++ headers before defining all the macros for the non-reserved names, hopefully the system headers use include guards and won't be included again. Jakub