This is the mail archive of the 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: Dealing with compilers that pretend to be GCC

Why not just implement the clang feature checking macros?

Besides fixing the whole problem that this thread identifies, it doesn't require cramming tons of macros into the initial preprocessor state, speeding up compiler startup time.


On Jan 21, 2012, at 12:14 AM, Basile Starynkevitch <> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:32:29 +0100
> Vincent Lefevre <> wrote:
>> On 2012-01-20 23:28:07 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> May I politely suggest that this is the wrong place to complain about
>>> other compilers pretending to be GCC :)
>> I think that's the fault of GCC, which should have defined a macro
>> for each extension.
> I agree with that. And I even hope that if GCC 4.7 defined several macros, one for each
> extensions, like e.g.
>   __GCC_HAVE_INDIRECT_GOTO__  for the goto *x; feature
>   __GCC_HAVE_STATEMENT_EXPR__ for statement expressions
> etc then perhaps in several years other compilers would do likewise. We just have to
> document our features and their corresponding macros...
> Regards. 
> -- 
> email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
> 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
> *** opinions {are only mine, sont seulement les miennes} ***

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