Re: major/minor(3) macros conflict with regular code

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 11:48:48PM +0100, Anthony Mallet wrote:
 > Hi,
 > 
 > I have some code that defines these methods in a C++ class:
 >   int32_t major() const
 >   int32_t minor() const
 > (for the context: this is in protobuf generated code from a message
 > that has major/minor fields).
 > 
 > The generated code fails to compile because it conflicts with major(3)
 > macro and minor(3) macros from sys/types.h:
 > 
 > #define major(x)        ((devmajor_t)(((uint32_t)(x) & 0x000fff00) >>  8))
 > #define minor(x) ...
 > 
 > Do major(3) and minor(3) really need to be macros?

I think maybe a better question is: do they really need to be in
<sys/types.h>? They seem like the kind of thing that more properly
belongs in <sys/param.h>, whether or not that's traditional.

(Standards have things to say about the namespace pollution allowed to
<sys/types.h>, but even regardless of that it's supposed to be
reasonably safe to add <sys/types.h> to virtually any source file.)

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost