On 2024-05-16 23:25, Collin Funk wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 5/16/24 10:16 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
+#if (__GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 3))\
+ || (defined __has_builtin && __has_builtin (__builtin_bswap32))
Unfortunately this usage is not portable, not for __has_bui
Collin Funk asked:
> I'm assuming that _GL_[module-name]_(rest-of-macro) can be assumed
> safe?
Yes, such a macro name is safe.
Bruno
Hi Paul,
On 5/16/24 10:16 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> +#if (__GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 3))\
>> + || (defined __has_builtin && __has_builtin (__builtin_bswap32))
>
> Unfortunately this usage is not portable, not for __has_builtin or for any of
> the other __
+#if (__GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 3))\
+ || (defined __has_builtin && __has_builtin (__builtin_bswap32))
Unfortunately this usage is not portable, not for __has_builtin or for
any of the other __has_XX primitives. This is because older compilers
will rep
teswap.m4 should be good
enough. If not the test cases I added in patch 2 should catch it at
least.
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2024-05/msg00188.html
CollinFrom 0858943ba21449b1f8fd0c0ed8c2342cdac3c374 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Collin Funk
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 20:37:14 -0
