Fix checking of TARGET_* symbols #204
Conversation
|
Is the change supposed to fix something that isn't working, or is it more just to make the code clearer? |
|
To add to @matthewelse's question, the two forms are not equivalent. If you defined a symbol SYM as 0, #if SYM will evaluate to false, but #ifdef SYM will evaluate to true. |
|
At first, I thought that this is an obvious error; but I have just learned that the effect of "-DFOO" and "#define FOO" is different :). So this change does not fix anything as the commit message says. Still think, this should be merged for consistency. |
|
Yeah I guessed what @bogdanm said, I was just wondering what the point of the change was, but I think that consistency is a good reason 👍 |
|
@fatih-asici, before I merge this pull request, could you please sign the mbed contributor agreement at https://mbed.org/contributor_agreement/ ? It's a required step for everyone who contributes code to mbed. Thank you! |
|
@bogdanm, I had already signed it. My mbed account name is fasici. |
Fix checking of TARGET_* symbols
added support for features array to build tools
…I_IOT2A (ARMmbed#204) * Fix issues with new async SPI changes that broke compiling for B_U585I_IOT2A * Few more incorrect nullptrs * Fix style
No description provided.