From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Thu Jan 18 12:36:19 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@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 CA401E76F86; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:36:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from ainaz.pair.com (ainaz.pair.com [209.68.2.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8D9F6AC73; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:36:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from ainaz.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8663F6F2; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 07:27:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from anthias (unknown [46.183.103.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 78D3C3F6F1; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 07:26:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:26:55 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Jan Beich cc: Alexey Dokuchaev , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r457632 - in head/lang/guile2: . files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:36:19 -0000 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). This is also what the GCC documentation uses when describing these macros in cpp.info. Gerald