This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: FW: trademark filings for GCC?

From: Jim Wilson <wilson at tuliptree dot org>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>
Cc: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl dot com>, gcc at gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:44:44 -0700
Subject: Re: FW: trademark filings for GCC?
References: <200307091443.KAA20540@caip.rutgers.edu> <200307091443.KAA20540@caip.rutgers.edu> <5.0.2.1.2.20030709180317.07176938@popserver.patents.com> <E19aoug-0000Jr-Q9@fencepost.gnu.org> <Pine.LNX.4.56.0307111115140.6963@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>

Joseph S. Myers wrote:

What about __GNUC__ (the preprocessor define)?  It has been reported
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-06/msg01822.html> that Intel's nonfree
compiler defines it to masquerade as GCC.

Unfortunately, we don't distinguish between the macro used to identify gcc, and the macro used to identify the GNU C language implemented by gcc. We use the same macro for both purposes. Since it is reasonable for any compiler to implement the GNU C language, and because any such compiler must define the __GNUC__ macro, I don't believe we have any credible argument for restricting other compilers from defining __GNUC__.

Jim

References:
- Re: FW: trademark filings for GCC?
  - From: Richard Stallman
- Re: FW: trademark filings for GCC?
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]