From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from second.openwall.net (second.openwall.net [193.110.157.125]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F2DD2019D for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:55:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 1072 invoked by uid 550); 24 Apr 2024 07:55:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 1033 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2024 07:55:41 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1713945331; x=1714550131; darn=lists.openwall.com; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=qgic1KLtSPCSWf0uQjJj94TgMblR571LAfN/M3gEUf8=; b=CAxEjx25UfTWyhmQn8EJJ9QxPZBwkuVE05tXJQ/yDR3QTJwjFgz+vP89mDw7gH0I+l Y4YlBcge11UW/rueIpC1hIq0xlFJlm5ZunhU+z91lOUCUbZHa9N8703i3uJTYrydVuqL z2d7Rb0IFucqp2ee+H5DNpRqdXPjK+iyiEoPuCXQhp2fsWbyvAAx72yL/rMnI4guwwBW N2WqzQvr81XzUeHH0mq8nE601BQSiDdAA138cWphceWHk3k88CjLaZDAXTv6RFiztFr+ 2X1oMANhRwEHTmOrbj613m81DHfZfTT3l8viZ9ScKc0Oh276/SoPz/mfOB7MElqWLoFX zlww== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713945331; x=1714550131; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=qgic1KLtSPCSWf0uQjJj94TgMblR571LAfN/M3gEUf8=; b=HuhF09MWzNMz0GzXyEFQ2MagniP0ISY8xnxBd7IieJnRKY3sp0lqwJ0Hhb3JzN3hLi B6JuixO21Z9ylM63M1I1r0q8c1I06btRMjk/oikC2+Vrzz0RdA4umgoRLVx46JXPE7UA ZwSYyYmnpvab4isVyfby71X7Y0vMYSgWhqs6MMn7wQxHRGUzPwPtpwL2oYKUxNkP+bpL UwE4grtZvtmp+xJ4diPJtLgSZVPJ0KrKOiVjIxxbG0sSe3QMsgRCfGg8YniW70EWWdu1 FR3FSYYEnuMAnahD/zajmCN7GVTDvDzy+Ud/bMosGu2ZvLrJBwlxX01Oguf2pUY0wmWs /9bQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzY8ZXr8TZv+i3J0go6us95x71ZsIofxsoG08gSqDjEW6jdfcnb FICyPuK46lpdugCpFwd2Piy1DYJuquFYXUP/bK8Gq4Q9FhamGsUp77QOhzwZmwdBpqmHP6/3qoK h+INt2oinr9cuaQSaurwvjs+R9uM/Rh0M X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEAfG+2pJRIvFV0qxa9r9hhwyFI/hN0deG+n+FvtybocqEDiYnPrAwqnMQhZ3UE5VlONI6JZwi8wQ7RvQgA2AA= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:1699:b0:22d:f619:94c5 with SMTP id j25-20020a056870169900b0022df61994c5mr1707462oae.10.1713945331086; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:55:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3KDMGHI91MHTL.24XCHF6E4X1XG@mforney.org> <20240421234809.GK4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1Z2XU7Z5OB2AV.26EJYFLGNXL0W@mforney.org> In-Reply-To: From: Jeffrey Walton Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 03:55:19 -0400 Message-ID: To: musl@lists.openwall.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009fbe790616d2fe2d" Subject: Re: [musl] Alignment attribute in headers --0000000000009fbe790616d2fe2d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:40=E2=80=AFAM Jon Chesterfield < jonathanchesterfield@gmail.com> wrote: > Re testing GNUC, > > I'm not sure the macro means "targeting Linux", and it seems totally > legitimate that a C compiler which doesn't implement any GNU extensions > would not define that macro. Musl is quite a likely choice for a non-gnu > compiler that wants to compile code to run against the Linux kernel. > __GNUC__, __GNUC_MINOR__ and __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ only means the macros are defined by GNU compilers that use the C preprocessor. See < https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Common-Predefined-Macros.html>. The macros don't mean "targeting Linux". They are also defined on OS X (Darwin) and Windows. Jeff --0000000000009fbe790616d2fe2d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:40=E2=80=AF= AM Jon Chesterfield <j= onathanchesterfield@gmail.com> wrote:
Re testing GNUC,

I'm not sure the macro means "ta= rgeting Linux", and it seems totally legitimate that a C compiler whic= h doesn't implement any GNU extensions would not define that macro. Mus= l is quite a likely choice for a non-gnu compiler that wants to compile cod= e to run against the Linux kernel.

__GNUC__,=C2=A0__GNUC_MINOR__ and __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ only means th= e macros are defined by GNU compilers that use the C preprocessor. See <= https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Common-Predefined-Macros.html>.=

The macros don't mean "targeting Linux&q= uot;. They are also defined on OS X (Darwin) and Windows.
Jeff
--0000000000009fbe790616d2fe2d--