linux-kernel - Re: why test for "__GNUC_

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:17:51 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject:  Re: why test for "__GNUC__"?

Hallo.

On 2006-10-29, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 07:44:18AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> > p.s.  is there, in fact, any part of the kernel source tree that has a
>> > preprocessor directive to identify the use of ICC?  just curious.
>>
>> Please, do
>>
>> 	ls include/linux/compiler-*
>
> but according to compiler.h:
>
> /* Intel compiler defines __GNUC__. So we will overwrite implementations
>  * coming from above header files here
>  */
>
> so even ICC will define __GNUC__, which means that testing for
> __GNUC__ is *still*, under the circumstances, redundant, isn't that
> right?

Does it introduce bugs? Just think of it as legacy, if you want.

And if you can, please, help with development or bugs, not this.
____

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/