Bryan Hundven schrieb:
niXman wrote:
__has_include() [1] macro implementation can be accepted in GCC(may be
as GCC extension)?
Is there any sense to send a patch?
[1] http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#__has_include
I would also be interested in an answer to see if this can become a
part of gcc (as well as the has_warning)
Also interesting in the __has_builtin.
In the avr backend I added built-in defines for each target-specific
built-in function and built-in type:
"For each built-in function for AVR, there is an equally named,
uppercase built-in macro defined. That way users can easily query
if or if not a specific built-in is implemented or not.
For example, if __builtin_avr_nop is available the macro
__BUILTIN_AVR_NOP is defined to 1 and undefined otherwise."
I think it is much more convenient and and consistent across
architectures to have something like __has_builtin or have the
builtin machinery define such macros in a consistent nomenclature.
but you could just check the defines a header usually makes:
std_header.h:
#ifndef STD_HEADER_H
#define STD_HEADER_H
This used internal knowledge of the header, some use naming
convention like STD_HEADER_H_ or STD_HEADER_H__.
