add v850 to rtems types

Eric Blake
Thu Sep 13 23:04:00 GMT 2012

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

> 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    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 617 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the Newlib mailing list