Le vendredi 15 février 2013 13:39:57, grischka a écrit : > You wrote: > > fixed pasto in in 108b2876; background for the additional $CC test is: > > GCC_MAJOR may be set even is $CC not realy gcc (but i.e. clang, which (as > > of 3.1) requires an addtional CFLAG to accept the non portable (gnuisms > > all over the place; try to cimpile tcc with Sun^HOracle, Intel, > > Pathscale, ... compiler) code). > > Using "-fheinous-gnu-extensions" for clang makes sense but I still > don't see how "GCC_MAJOR may be set even is $CC not realy gcc"???
I suppose like for tinycc, lots of code out there test GCC_MAJOR and GCC_MINOR for available features so other compilers with good compatibility with gcc have no choice but to pretend to be gcc. > > Thanks, > > --- grischka Best regards, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
