Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 ------- Additional Comments From bagnara@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-08 11:49 EST ------- > * Definitions in header files > - Some definitions in some header files are very dangerous > and may easyly cause definition conflict. > For example, /usr/include/ppl.hh has some definitions such that > ----------------------------------------------------------- > #define HAVE_SYS_TYPES_H 1 > #define HAVE_UNISTD_H 1 > ----------------------------------------------------------- > ... etc. These definition names are too generic and may cause > conflicts on definition name space when other header files > from other packages are included. > > Generally, these types of generic "#define" macro should be > included in header files. > Remove unneeded (and dangerous) #define and #ifdef macros > or change the names of macros to less generic. > > - And note that #ifdef macros are generally unhappy. At least > please ensure that #ifdef judgment does not affect the ABI > of the libraries. > > (Same for /usr/include/pwl.hh in -pwl-devel package) I have started addressing this problem for PPL 0.10. As you can see from http://www.cs.unipr.it/pipermail/ppl-devel/2007-June/010880.html http://www.cs.unipr.it/pipermail/ppl-devel/2007-June/010879.html this requires changing many files that PPL 0.9 (our stable release) is better left alone (also because no user has complained up to now). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review