Clarify the strategy to avoid conflict between two different versions of Abseil #883
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ming before no-namespace definition
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #883 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 95.44% 95.44%
=======================================
Files 157 157
Lines 6633 6633
=======================================
Hits 6330 6330
Misses 303 303 |
lalitb
approved these changes
Jun 30, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #880 - this issue got closed by customer, since I provided a workaround. But I feel like this workaround needs to be properly documented.
Changes
The issue is that our snapshot of Abseil is defining properly-namespaced struct, whereas the stock Abseil does not. Then depending on inclusion order, if our API header gets included first - this completely confuses
gcc. I have seen this issue with older Visual Studio 2015, but not with clang on Windows.There may be a better strategy to solve this.. However, given we got a confirmation the mitigation strategy works well for the customer - I would like to apply this doc update, to explain how to avoid the issue. I'd defer a better fix until later moment (not sure if possible, most likely possible, e.g. rename the offending struct?)