Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: why test for "__GNUC__"? | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:59:48 -0500 |
| |
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:48:43 EST, "Robert P. J. Day" said: > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 07:44:18AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > p.s. is there, in fact, any part of the kernel source tree that has a > > > preprocessor directive to identify the use of ICC? just curious. > > > > Please, do > > > > ls include/linux/compiler-* > > but according to compiler.h: > > /* Intel compiler defines __GNUC__. So we will overwrite implementations > * coming from above header files here > */ > > so even ICC will define __GNUC__, which means that testing for > __GNUC__ is *still*, under the circumstances, redundant, isn't that > right?
The Intel compiler started defining __GNUC__ fairly recently (within the last 2-3 years). Most likely the tests date from long ago and far away, before it did so. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |