Re: add v850 to rtems types

[Eric Blake <eblake at redhat dot com>]

On 09/06/2012 08:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

>>>
>>> The non-POSIX compliant __v850 define is redundant to the
>>> POSIX-compliant __v850__ and __v851__
>>
>> Huh?  How is __v850 non-POSIX compliant?
> 
> It's GCC convention to use __XXXX___ for compiler internal,
> "posix-compliant" defines.
> 
>> POSIX mirrors the C99 rules
>> (and C11 keeps those rules) that all identifiers starting with __ are
>> reserved for the implementation; hence __v850 and __v850__ are both
>> implementation-reserved names, and neither one violates POSIX.
> 
> If you say so. All I can say is, this does not match GCC conventions.

Then state that in the first place.  You are correct that although POSIX
allows both forms, gcc conventions dictate a form with trailing
double-underscore.

> 
> Whether the claim of __XXX defines not being strictly POSIX compliant is
> true, I don't know. I however, recall a larger campaign in GCC to
> replace __XXX defines with __XXX__ defines and to consider __XXX defines
> obsolete and deprecated.

I think we're in violent agreement on this point.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake@redhat.com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature