[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOUYtQA=5ZRujO_4tA6J94NKpDQnvrrSGu3WMc4arkG19YiOvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:49:27 +0100
From: Jon Chesterfield <jonathanchesterfield@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Alignment attribute in headers
Use in practice and use in documentation don't always align but it seems
you're agreeing that requiring GNU macros to use a Linux specific header is
invalid.
Jon
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024, 08:55 Jeffrey Walton, <noloader@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:40 AM Jon Chesterfield <
> jonathanchesterfield@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Re testing GNUC,
>>
>> I'm not sure the macro means "targeting Linux", and it seems totally
>> legitimate that a C compiler which doesn't implement any GNU extensions
>> would not define that macro. Musl is quite a likely choice for a non-gnu
>> compiler that wants to compile code to run against the Linux kernel.
>>
>
> __GNUC__, __GNUC_MINOR__ and __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ only means the macros are
> defined by GNU compilers that use the C preprocessor. See <
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Common-Predefined-Macros.html>.
>
> The macros don't mean "targeting Linux". They are also defined on OS X
> (Darwin) and Windows.
>
> Jeff
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
