Ken Moffat wrote: > I suppose "correct" comes down to finding out why asm-i386/types.h > has this two-part condition in the first place.
I've seen some remarks in the gcc list archives[0] about "long long" and ISO C++: > Does 'long long' conflict with ISO C++? Yes, if no diagnostics is > issued. [sic] Now, I just did some testing with "long long" and g++ (4.1.1) to see how it handled it. It seems to accept it just fine unless you add -pedantic (then it errors, saying "long long is not supported in ISO C++"). So it looks like the kernel check isn't required (at least for gcc/g++). [0] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-06/msg00375.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
