[libdispatch-dev] [PATCH 05/17] more precise detection of blocks

Jordan K. Hubbard jkh at apple.com
Sun Oct 18 12:25:24 PDT 2009

On Oct 18, 2009, at 8:04 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> I now make the test a bit more precise; for some reason my first LLVM
> installation had blocks but no Blocks.h and Blocks_private.h.  After
> adding this check, using __BLOCKS__ is not sufficient anymore hence
> I changed it all over the place to an autoconfy HAVE_BLOCKS symbol.

I think your llvm/clang installation is missing the appropriate  
compiler_rt bits.  You should definitely have a Blocks.h and  
Blocks_private.h as part of being a platform which supports Blocks.   
That said, if your autoconf-driven HAVE_BLOCKS check is more robust in  
the face of incomplete installations then it sounds like a win  
regardless, just so long as we are clear on what a "correct" clang  
install looks like. :)

So.  On all !MacOSX systems, I'm assuming it's now also the default  
assumption that "Blocks support" means "Clang + LLVM + compiler_rt"?   
I haven't heard much, if anything, about anyone pursuing the gcc  

- Jordan

More information about the libdispatch-dev mailing list