From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2012-02-26 14:59:52
|
Bugs item #3490776, was opened at 2012-02-22 01:00 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by spth You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=3490776&group_id=599 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: C Preprocessor Group: fixed Status: Open Resolution: Remind Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth) Assigned to: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth) Summary: Feature macros Initial Comment: sdcc does not provide complex types, variable-length arrays, multithreading and atomics. While this is allowed by the C11 standard (and with the exception of variable-length arrays by the C99 standard), implementations that do not provide these features have to define the __STDC_NO_COMPLEX__, __STDC_NO_VLA_, __STDC_NO_THREADS__ and __STDC_NO_ATOMICS__ macros. Philipp ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth) Date: 2012-02-26 06:59 Message: Hmm, where should we warn? In the preprocessor? Another option would be to bring back the old macro names when using --std-sdcc89 or --std-sdcc99 and marking them as deprecated in the documentation (which I should update for this change anyway). Philipp ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock) Date: 2012-02-26 00:34 Message: Philipp, With your fix for this item you've broken code for everyone depending on the documented predefined macros. And unless I missed it the compiler gives no warning to the user about it. I think we need to warn the user when we encounter something (macro-like?) that starts with 'SDCC'. Furthermore you forgot to update compiler.h which btw in my opinion needs to stay compiler version independent. Thus the check for 'SDCC' needs to stay but can be OR-ed with '__SDCC'. I have therefor reopened this item. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth) Date: 2012-02-22 07:58 Message: Fixed in revision #7324. Philipp ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100599&aid=3490776&group_id=599 |