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

Shantonu Sen ssen at apple.com
Sun Oct 18 12:34:59 PDT 2009

Or llvm-gcc + compiler_rt


Sent from my MacBook

On Oct 18, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> 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 alternative.
> - Jordan
> _______________________________________________
> libdispatch-dev mailing list
> libdispatch-dev at lists.macosforge.org
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/libdispatch-dev

More information about the libdispatch-dev mailing list