"brian m. carlson" <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net> writes: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:26:37AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> "Fairly OK" is a good way of putting it. It's not reached the level of >> "good," but it's probably workable for most practical purposes. You >> will get spurious warnings about some things, such as some of the >> __attribute__ tags, but I don't think I've seen a case where it flatly >> refuses to compile something or miscompiles it. That said, I've not >> used some of the hairier gcc extensions. > I have some code that uses the __builtin_ia32_* functions for intrinsics > that clang refuses to compile because it has different, incompatible > intrinsics (#653256). Since clang insists on using __GNUC__, it's > difficult to detect whether the compiler really is GCC or whether it's a > broken clone (which could be clang or something entirely different). > clang upstream does not consider this incompatibility a bug; I do. Yeah, I have similar messes in some of my code. /* * LLVM and Clang pretend to be GCC but don't support all of the __attribute__ * settings that GCC does. For them, suppress warnings about unknown * attributes on declarations. This unfortunately will affect the entire * compilation context, but there's no push and pop available. */ #if !defined(__attribute__) && (defined(__llvm__) || defined(__clang__)) # pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wattributes" #endif (Note that Clang does support #pragma GCC diagnostic, so it definitely does support a bunch of the GCC extensions.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87txvmwc4o....@windlord.stanford.edu
