This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: Darwin pragmas
- To: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Darwin pragmas
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:12:48 -0700
- cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
--On Tuesday, June 26, 2001 01:35:40 PM -0700 Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com>
wrote:
> "Joseph S. Myers" wrote:
>>
>> On 25 Jun 2001, Geoff Keating wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, please, testcases for every feature. I think we decided that
>> > even target-specific pragmas should have documentation, but presumably
>> > in a target-specific section of the docs... I'm not sure where that
>> > might go. Probably in the bit about 'C extensions', have a sub-node
>> > for pragmas, and a second sub-node for 'pragmas for Darwin'.
>>
>> Yes, they need documentation and testcases. cpp.texi is where existing
>> pragmas are documented.
>
> These need to go in extend.texi though, since they're not preprocessor
> related.
>
>> Are these pragmas in a namespace (#pragma GCC or #pragma Darwin)?
We can't do anything about #pragmas that appear in header files on
random systems. For example, Solaris has some #pragmas in its headers
that will always be there and we will always have to deal with. OS X is
just another random system from our perspective. So, I don't think we
need to try to move/deprecate these #pragmas. We just need to ensure
that they are only present when targeting Darwin code.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com