From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Thu Jan 18 13:35:14 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8992E7AF41; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:35:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:6074::16:84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7D806DA69; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:35:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id DC06F15837; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:35:13 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: Jan Beich , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r457632 - in head/lang/guile2: . files Message-ID: <20180118133513.GA15166@FreeBSD.org> References: <201712301912.vBUJCdtc086342@repo.freebsd.org> <1sjc-ylsz-wny@FreeBSD.org> <20171231084028.GA98479@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:35:14 -0000 On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 01:26:55PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 31 Dec 2017, Jan Beich wrote: > >> How about this: > >> > >> #if defined(__clang__) || (__GNUC__ * 10 + __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 46) > >> ... ? > > Looks OK. None of lang/gcc* ports have __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 10. > > GCC itself consistently uses > > __GNUC__ * 10000 + __GNUC_MINOR__ * 100 + __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ > > so this is what I'd go for (or omitting __GNUC_PATCH_LEVEL__, but > using a factor of 100, not 10). Yes, I was considering it, but using factor of 100 meant larger numbers and also our COMPILER_VERSION uses factor of 10. ./danfe