Open
Description
Input C/C++ Header
#define FOO 4
#define BAR (1 + FOO)
#undef FOO
#define FOO 5
#define BAZ (1 + FOO)
Bindgen Invocation
$ bindgen input.h
Actual Results
pub const FOO: u32 = 4;
pub const BAR: u32 = 5;
pub const BAZ: u32 = 6;
Expected Results
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
andBAZ
are computed using the first definition ofFOO
. Meaning that the second definition ofFOO
is ignored.
pub const FOO: u32 = 4;
pub const BAR: u32 = 5;
pub const BAZ: u32 = 5;
- Or even better, the value of
BAR
is computed the first definition ofFOO
and the values ofFOO
andBAZ
are computed using the second definition ofFOO
.
pub const BAR: u32 = 5;
pub const FOO: u32 = 5;
pub const BAZ: u32 = 6;
- 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
:
pub const BAR: u32 = 6;
pub const FOO: u32 = 5;
pub const BAZ: u32 = 6;
I'd say that there is no "right" answer but I'd prefer the second or third option.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels