On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 04:48:55PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > Leaving aside for the moment the problem with Apple's oddball invented > version numbers for `clang`, should this patch also take older `clang` > versions into consideration rather than focusing only on `gcc`? (Of > course, `clang` could be dealt with in a separate patch if you'd > rather not worry about it here.) I was just fixing the reported gcc issue, and forgot totally that clang had been mentioned in previous rounds. I'd be happy to just see a clang patch on top of this once somebody figures out the right versions (but it may be impossible without figuring out the oddball Apple thing). -Peff
