[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72nXXBgwKcs36R+uau2o1YypfSFKAYWV2xmcRZgz8LRQww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:52:44 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"gcc-patches@....gnu.org" <gcc-patches@....gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] compiler-gcc.h: add asm_inline definition
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:45 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> [ That's not what a feature test macro is; a feature test macro allows the
> user to select some optional behaviour. Things like _GNU_SOURCE. ]
Yes and no. GNU libc defines feature test macros like you say, but
C++'s feature macros are like Rasmus/Nick are saying. I think libc's
definition is weird, I would call those "feature selection macros"
instead, because the user is selecting between some features (whether
to enable or not, for instance), rather than testing for the features.
> Why would GCC want to have macros for all features it has? That would be
> quite a few new ones every release.
Maybe GCC wouldn't, but its users, they surely would. For anything
that 1) is a new language feature, 2) breaks backwards-compatibility
with previous (or other compilers) and 3) is expected to be used by
end users, yes, it would be very useful to have.
For the same reasons C++ is adding feature test macros all over the
place nowadays and it is considered good practice (see SD-6: SG10
Feature Test Recommendations).
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists