On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 19:41 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Have you look at any of the "macro is defined" checks recently? > They are performed by building a small test file and attempting to > compile it on the target platform. > > They aren't compiled, it only handled by the C preprocessor (in the > case of C macros).
Go look again. But in any case, how do I run the C preprocessor on my wristwatch from my Linux machine? The wristwatch doesn't *have* a C preprocessor. > > how exactly do you test the integer size on a cross target? > > > > By not depending on the integer size. > > Please explain how to do that in a C program? > > sizeof? Good. Now I wish to do integer computation of known required precision. Please explain how I state the correct integer types to use. Note that sizeof() is an expression, and cannot be used in either an ifdef or a type declaration. Hint: this problem was bad enough that C99 felt compelled to add a whole new header to deal with it because the issues were impossible to solve portably within the existing C language. You are throwing out glib solutions that don't work. You haven't even really thought about them. > It's getting better, but it's not there yet. Some of the ways in > which it is getting better are highly linux-centric. The GCC cross > build is *much* less friendly for non-UNIX targets than it used to > be. > > It doesn't have to be friendly to non-UNIX targets. GCC is the GNU > projects compiler, not the UNIX compiler. Little boy, I was working on GCC right about the time you were learning to read your first picture book. Do not pontificate to *me* about who GCC is for. From Richard I will take that (without, I might add, taking it terribly seriously). He has earned the right, because much of the earliest version of GCC was his work. What are *you* contributing (other than complaints and whining)? shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
