>> maybe you should define a couple of macros like
>> GNULIB_LLVM_CLANG_VER and GNULIB_APPLE_CLANG_VER
>
> I hope we don't need to do that. This is software archaeology (Mac
> OS X 10.7.5 is so old that neither the Subject: line nor my patch
> got its name right, and nobody mentioned the mistake :-) and these
> macros would clutter the code for little benefit. Most
> Clang-specific code nowadays shouldn't use Clang version numbers; it
> should use __has_builtin etc.
BTW, since MacPorts provides newer clang versions, it's fully OK with
me if that old clang version gets rejected, in case this would yield a
better solution.
Werner
