On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 08:43:44AM +0100, Hongli Lai wrote:
> Here's a new patch should be less invasive than the last one. The new
> approach is as follows:
> - Introduced an ECB_REAL_GCC macro which tells us whether the GCC is
> the real one or another implementation just claiming to be GCC.
> l
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> none of which seem to influence correctness in a bad way, unlike your
> proposed changes.
>
> you see, we have basically these choices:
>
> a) possibly break code in unexpected ways on some far away box, but have
> fewer warnings on an obsol
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 11:18:44PM +0100, Hongli Lai wrote:
> > hmm, I am curious, what kind of warnings are these?
hmm, these are harmless and can be ignored, and possibly switched off if
they are a nuisance.
> I don't know whether it's fully implemented, but everything that ecb.h
> uses *is* f
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 11:33:01PM +0100, Hongli Lai wrote:
> > I doubt they're actually fully implemented in OSX's llvm-gcc 4.2.1. Do you
> > have any supporting documentation or research on that?
>
> All I know is that they compile and that they seem to have effect.
Which leaves these issues
