You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I think the actual results are inconsistent because BAZ was evaluated with the redefinition of FOO but FOO itself was not. For the sake of consistency I'd say that the expected behavior should be one of the following:
The values of FOO, BAR and BAZ are computed using the first definition of FOO. Meaning that the second definition of FOO is ignored.
Or even better, the value of BAR is computed the first definition of FOO and the values of FOO and BAZ are computed using the second definition of FOO.
Alternatively, all the macros could be "expanded/evaluated" after reading all the file. Meaning that all the values are computed with the last definition of FOO:
Input C/C++ Header
Bindgen Invocation
Actual Results
Expected Results
I think the actual results are inconsistent because
BAZ
was evaluated with the redefinition ofFOO
butFOO
itself was not. For the sake of consistency I'd say that the expected behavior should be one of the following:FOO
,BAR
andBAZ
are computed using the first definition ofFOO
. Meaning that the second definition ofFOO
is ignored.BAR
is computed the first definition ofFOO
and the values ofFOO
andBAZ
are computed using the second definition ofFOO
.FOO
:I'd say that there is no "right" answer but I'd prefer the second or third option.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: