On Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:36 PM, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> If you believe that this is a C preprocessor issue, then you seem >>> to m=ss the needed knowledge in programming. >>> >>> The patch in question tries to add code that is not valid C. >>> >>> I am not willing to add code that prevents compilation because it >>> is n=t valid C. >> >> The only other thing that could be considered "wrong" about the patch >> is that it uses a leading __ in a macro name, which is reserved by >> the standard. Is that your objection? > > From the viewpoint of C, there is no macro but just superfluous text. No, there's a macro. Specifically defined by #ifndef __GNUC__ #define __attribute__(X) #endif to ensure that the patch *does* *not* "break compilation on a typical platform", nor any platform with a working C preprocessor. <steps off the roundabout before getting too dizzy> Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
