This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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] |
On 01/03/2013 11:59 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:On Thu, 3 Jan 2013, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
right now, I would only mention GCC as supported compiler - and add others only if somebody steps up that is using that compiler and will take care of the support on glibc. nevertheless, I would be conservate and handle GCC extensions as extensions - something we need to test for before using it.
Well in that case then the GLIBC_HAVE_BUILTIN_MEMSET is *assumed* since we support only GCC, and versions 2.91 or newer always have that builtin, so the code can be cleaned up?
Did I understand that correctly?
No. The point is that there should be feature tests before extensions are used in installed headers. I'd say 2.95 as minimum compiler should mean that pre-2.95 GCC generally gets the non-GCC code if it doesn't have the relevant feature (rather than having special handling to use some other feature it might have that can substitute for the feature in newer GCC).
The clarifies it for me thanks.
Users can continue to use pre-2.95 GCC, but will get generic code.
Thanks, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |