Bastien Chevreux <bach@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Would it be worthwhile to forward this to the GNU compiler maintainers > so that they could maybe correct their course by maybe introducing a > define which is ‘reserved’ for telling that, yes, this is indeed a GNU > compiler? That's what __GNUC__ was for. However, from the perspective of the authors of the other compilers, this is a bug -- they want to be able to compile code that uses GCC extensions, which is why they're implementing those extensions. So they *want* their compiler to be detected as capable of supporting GCC extensions. So, if GCC added a new define, the other compilers would just start defining that symbol as well. I'm afraid the only hope you have, if you depend on extensions that are not implemented by other compilers, is to test explicitly for those extensions. -- Russ Allbery (eagle@xxxxxxxxx) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
