Got it!! __APPLE_CC__ is defined to be 1 by FSF GCC, but is defined to
be the APPLE compiler revision by a genuine APPLE GCC.
So the fix is trivial.
The number of websites and even books that have the wrong information
about this is just immense! So much damned misinformation about GCC on
the we
That's great.
BTW, I didn't get to testing trunk on SkyNet yet as I've been working
on a new release of my other project, and today was a short day.
Tomorrow I plan to get some testing underway.
We still have to solve the darn Apple GCC/FSF GCC issue of course.
Bill.
2009/3/10 jason :
>
> I've
I've fixed this now , it was just a gmp.h that got renamed to mpir.h
and a wrong path
On Mar 9, 12:49 am, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
> The update to mpir-0.9.0 so that it can build out of the source tree doesn't
> work , I could of sworn I tested it , I'll have a look at it next week if we
If FSF GCC builds on the apple system then I suppose it would need to know
which compiler is being used to bootstrap it , so somewhere in FSF GCC
code/or configure would be the recommended safe way of detecting which.
On Monday 09 March 2009 22:37:58 Bill Hart wrote:
> OK, I did some reading,
OK, I did some reading, and apparently FSF GCC defines __APPLE_CC__ on
Apple machines. So testing if this is defined does not tell you if the
compiler vendor is Apple or FSF.
The reason is that apparently Apple's include files break if this is
not defined by GCC.
I'm surprised we haven't seen th
Hi Mariah,
Perhaps I can answer your question with another.
How would I write the program so that gcc does not identify itself as Apple?
Are you saying that by including stdio.h that it defines __APPLE_CC__?
Are the standard libraries set up to tell me which compiler it is? If
so they are tell
Hi Mariah,
Perhaps I can answer your question with another.
How would I write the program so that gcc does not identify itself as Apple?
Are you saying that by including stdio.h that it defines __APPLE_CC__?
Are the standard libraries set up to tell me which compiler it is? If
so they are tell
Bill,
You claim that there is a problem with gcc-4.3.3 on varro.
I am afraid that I do not understand why you think so.
It looks like you added an include clause to a hello world
program, and then because the include clause was evaluated
you claim there is a problem with gcc. I am confused.
As
On Thursday 05 March 2009 13:45:17 Bill Hart wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> I can't speak for the future, but for now, I would take Jason's .asm
> files just before the conversion I did yesterday to be authoritative.
> One can check out previous revisions from svn, and that is probably
> the best way to g
On Thursday 05 March 2009 10:04:00 Cactus wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:26 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> > Yeah bring on 96 bit multiplies!!
> >
> > 2009/3/4 :
> > > On Wednesday 04 March 2009 23:04:13 Bill Hart wrote:
> > >> Yasm does seem to preserve what you code pretty well. I don't know of
> > >> any weir
10 matches
Mail list logo
