On 25/05/11 13:43, Matthias Kretz wrote: > I agree that it is much nicer to be able to use feature tests/macros > instead of compiler-version ifdefs. But library headers really don't > have any other way to work around compiler bugs or use new compiler > features. One can not expect from library users that they will correctly > define all required feature macros.
I meant that the header files that declare the functions should define the macros. They don't, and there's not much we can do about it. > Regarding the development of distri compiler specifc code: I don't > believe the macro would get much use other than the __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ > macro gets. Are you afraid of developers trying to cripple a distri they > don't like? Can you come up with a scenario where a developer would make > use of a distri specific define resulting in breakage on other distris? > I find this very hard to imagine. (Yes, there are developers that do > lots of stupid things, but the only thing to keep them from breaking > stuff is to have them stop programming. ;-) ) Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence! I forgot who said (something like) that, but it's certainly true in programming. I know I've done things the lazy way, or misunderstood how to use things enough times myself, so I'm not going to trust others to be perfect. > I understood you don't want to change the gcc 4.5.2 package at all? I'd > be happy for any, whatsoever small update to Natty gcc-4.5 that makes it > possible to work around the bug. So if you were to add the > _MM_MASKSTORE_PS_NEEDS_NATTY_WORKAROUND define that would be a welcome > help. I don't care much for how bad the ifdefs become. I can put that > logic in an extra code section which defines my feature macros... The code is frozen for anything but bug fixes, and even those have to be serious ones, I think. Adding a macro to a header is probably OK (Matthias?), but updating to 4.5.3 is out of the question. > But I'd hate for these things to only be fixable after a lengthy > discussion on a bugtracker, which is why I'd really like to have a macro > do determine the differences from the vanilla GCC release. These kind of > incompatibilities happened before and will happen again. I could add some sort of identifier to Linaro GCC, and Ubuntu GCC would pick that up. But, so would half a dozen other distros (mostly embedded, I think). Each then add their own patches on top of that, potentially. These patches will fix bugs, add features, add bugs, and change random things to taste. Does the Linaro identifier now mean anything? No, no more so than the GNU macros are working for you now. Sorry, but for these reasons and the reasons I gave before, I really don't like the idea. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/780551 Title: incorrect interface in avxintrin.h -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
