This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
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 double-underscore. > > 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 eblake@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |