In article <BAY104-DAV1332E03766A05E111E6847BF4E0@phx.gbl>, Daryle Walker <darylew@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12/2/05 12:55 PM, "David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Daryle Walker <darylew@hotmail.com> writes:
On 11/30/05 2:07 PM, "David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Daryle Walker <darylew@hotmail.com> writes:
On 11/29/05 4:27 PM, "Jason Kankiewicz" <jkankiewicz@advpubtech.com> wrote:
+# elif (defined(__GNUC__) && ((__GNUC__ >= 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >=5) || __GNUC__ >= 4))
Shouldn't the check for GCC 3.x be:
__GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 5
instead of the currently over-broad version? Otherwise version numbers like 4.6 or 5.9 would match on that phrase, which is wrong. They should match on the "__GNUC__ >= 4" phrase instead.
Well, that would certainly be clearer, but it is semantically equivalent, is it not?
Sort of; it happens to be equivalent for the 3.x series. The phrase implies it's applicable to any higher series (4.x, 5.x, etc.),
Isn't it?
It shouldn't apply to higher series; it should only be a fix for the 3.x series. As written, it's an erroneous over-generalization.
I think that this particular nit is hardly worth the amount of discussion it's generated, but I agree with Daryle. If the code says: ((__GNUC__ >= 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >=5) || __GNUC__ >= 4)) then changes that only apply to gcc 4 and higher will interfere with the first clause; on the other hand, if the code says ((__GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >=5) || __GNUC__ >= 4)) then changes that only apply to gcc 4 and higher will not interfere with the first clause. To see what I am trying to say, consider the case where gcc 4.5 comes out with new syntax and needs to be *excluded* by this #if statement. If you take the proposed patch: ((__GNUC__ >= 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >=5) || __GNUC__ >= 4)) and naively change it to ((__GNUC__ >= 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >=5) || (__GNUC__ >= 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 5)) you would not be making the correct change. You would, of course, soon discover your error, and then you would rewrite your condition to ((__GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >=5) || (__GNUC__ >= 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 5)) which is why Daryle and I believe that the change should be made now to make subsequent modifications easier. Ben -- I changed my name: <http://periodic-kingdom.org/People/NameChange.php>