On Nov 26, 2018, at 12:04 PM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I'll Ok the signal one, if you prefer it over a dummy signal routine.
> Though, would be nice for you to add signal if possible/reasonable.
Oh, and my long term thinking on signal is that logically, it's fine to have:
#if __has_include("signal.h")
signal(...);
#endif
and once we have a way to do that, then the processor specific test goes away.
Over time, it does seem that we add more introspection capabilities to the
compiler, and introspection on what headers are there, is pretty basic, so I
can see that one day, I expect we'll get support for it.
Indeed, I was looking at the laundry list of changes a port did recently
(effective target changes), and was wondering if all these would be better
served by the compiler setting up those values for introspection, and the
testsuite using those values from introspection.
Hum, [ testing ] we already have it, welcome to the future I guess. Could you
please use the above form instead? I can't think of any down side to doing it
this way.
