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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:59:48 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: why test for "__GNUC__"?

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:48:43 EST, "Robert P. J. Day" said:
> 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?

The Intel compiler started defining __GNUC__ fairly recently (within the
last 2-3 years).  Most likely the tests date from long ago and far away,
before it did so.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped