Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> writes: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:27:23AM -0700, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> Are all alternate compilers expected to implement gcc extensions? Must >> the code be changed to use appropriate '#ifdef __GNUC__' guards? (And >> what happens the next time gcc adds a new extension...?) > clang does a fairly OK job with some of gcc's extentions. "Fairly OK" is a good way of putting it. It's not reached the level of "good," but it's probably workable for most practical purposes. You will get spurious warnings about some things, such as some of the __attribute__ tags, but I don't think I've seen a case where it flatly refuses to compile something or miscompiles it. That said, I've not used some of the hairier gcc extensions. > I'd not consider a FTBFS with a non-critical compiler to be too high of > a severity, likely not RC. In fact, I'd likely only file a bug if the > issue is with the Debian packaging -- e.g. hardcoding CC or CXX in > d/rules or so, when the package builds fine without gcc otherwise. I think it's fine to have those be normal bugs. I would definitely not want to make honoring CC an RC bug; not even hardening flags are an RC bug (at least yet), and this is much less important. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87sjb70vxu....@windlord.stanford.edu
