-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update preprocessor #else
comment in product code to clarify which mode is where
#3900
Conversation
#else
comment in product headers to clarify which mode is where#else
comment in product code to clarify which mode is where
#else
comment in product code to clarify which mode is where#else
comment in product code to clarify which mode is where
…g disabled / warning enabled` form.
…ses with `defined`.
I pushed a bunch of commits since it was just easier to fix stuff than do my usual process of adding a GitHub comment followed by a paired commit. Tried to keep them organized:
|
I see da43a31 restored a couple of |
The principle is that in nested preprocessor code, we shouldn't omit comments. (The only exception are in the feature-test macro test, and the SCL/HID defaults, where they would lead to unproductive clutter.) Arrow comments would be fine, but omitting the inner layer of comments is contrary to our current convention, even though these are pretty simple cases. |
# Conflicts: # stl/inc/functional
I've pushed a merge with |
I'm mirroring this to the MSVC-internal repo - please notify me if any further changes are pushed. |
|
Towards #351. Product headers.
/tests
yet (but there are fewer places)#else // _HAS_EXCEPTIONS
to#else // ^^^ _HAS_EXCEPTIONS / !_HAS_EXCEPTIONS vvv
^^^ / vvv
comments, mostly like!_M_CEE
->!defined(_M_CEE)
#endif
coments to#endif // defined(...)
/#endif // !defined(...)