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.
Attachment:
pgptB08bo7gia.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- why test for "__GNUC__"?
- From: "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]>
- Re: why test for "__GNUC__"?
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: why test for "__GNUC__"?
- From: "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]>
- Re: why test for "__GNUC__"?
- From: Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
- Re: why test for "__GNUC__"?
- From: "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]>
- why test for "__GNUC__"?
- Prev by Date: Re: More uml build failures on 2.16.19-rc3 and 2.6.18.1
- Next by Date: Re: "signed" versus "__signed__" versus "__signed" in arch-specific "types.h" files
- Previous by thread: Re: why test for "__GNUC__"?
- Next by thread: [PATCH -mm] swsusp: Fix freezer.h breakage
- Index(es):