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]

Re: Builtins in `std'

To: Jason Merrill <jason_merrill at redhat dot com>
Subject: Re: Builtins in `std'
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
Date: 23 May 2001 20:22:32 +0200
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, bkoz at nabi dot net, gdr at codesourcery dot com, nathan at codesourcery dot com
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <20010522200302Y.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <m3lmnos6m4.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com> <20010523084523X.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <m3heycq7uw.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com>

Jason Merrill <jason_merrill@redhat.com> writes:

| > I want to make it up to the V3 people to wire the latter to the
| > former, as they've already done.
| 
| This is where I disagree.  I don't think the V3 people should have to worry
| about this stuff.  For one thing, it interferes with the goal of writing a
| portable library.

I don't think that is the case.  With the __builtin_foo approach, V3
can define foo provided it knows the compiler has the __builtin
version.  I don't see anything nonportable in that approach.  What am
I overlooking? 

-- Gaby

References:
- Builtins in `std'
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: Builtins in `std'
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: Builtins in `std'
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: Builtins in `std'
  - From: Jason Merrill

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