1 Return-Path: <teythoon@jade-hamburg.de>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C664431FBD
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=disabled
\r
13 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
14 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
15 with ESMTP id DYnhGAIShJtD for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
\r
17 Received: from mail.cryptobitch.de (cryptobitch.de [88.198.7.68])
\r
18 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
\r
19 (No client certificate requested)
\r
20 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CBCC431FAF
\r
21 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
\r
22 Received: from mail.jade-hamburg.de (mail.jade-hamburg.de [85.183.11.228])
\r
23 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
\r
24 (No client certificate requested)
\r
25 by mail.cryptobitch.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E23BD5AA9C6
\r
26 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:32:18 +0200 (CEST)
\r
27 Received: by mail.jade-hamburg.de (Postfix, from userid 401)
\r
28 id 2BB5FDF2A8; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:32:18 +0200 (CEST)
\r
29 Received: from thinkbox.jade-hamburg.de (unknown
\r
30 [IPv6:fe80::216:d3ff:fe3e:5058%br0])
\r
31 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
\r
32 (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: teythoon)
\r
33 by mail.jade-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3203DDF2A3;
\r
34 Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:32:12 +0200 (CEST)
\r
35 Received: from teythoon by thinkbox.jade-hamburg.de with local (Exim 4.80)
\r
36 (envelope-from <teythoon@thinkbox.jade-hamburg.de>)
\r
37 id 1TG5xR-0002i1-P6; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:32:09 +0200
\r
38 From: Justus Winter <4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>
\r
39 To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
40 Subject: [PATCH 1/5] RFC: Provide a __has_attribute compatibility macro
\r
41 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:31:53 +0200
\r
43 <1348482717-10340-2-git-send-email-4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>
\r
44 X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.10.4
\r
46 <1348482717-10340-1-git-send-email-4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>
\r
47 References: <20120922161256.GE26662@mit.edu>
\r
48 <1348482717-10340-1-git-send-email-4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>
\r
49 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
50 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
52 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
53 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
54 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
55 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
56 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
57 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
58 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
59 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
60 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
61 X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:32:27 -0000
\r
63 __has_attribute is defined by clang and tests whether a given function
\r
64 attribute is supported by clang.
\r
66 Add a compatibility macro for other compilers.
\r
68 Note: This is work in progress, please don't merge this patch. The
\r
69 question that needs to be discussed is where this kind of macro should
\r
72 Signed-off-by: Justus Winter <4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>
\r
74 util/error_util.h | 8 ++++++++
\r
75 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
\r
77 diff --git a/util/error_util.h b/util/error_util.h
\r
78 index bb15822..1b11047 100644
\r
79 --- a/util/error_util.h
\r
80 +++ b/util/error_util.h
\r
85 +/* clang provides this macro to test for support for function
\r
86 + * attributes. If it isn't defined, this provides a compatibility
\r
87 + * macro for other compilers.
\r
89 +#ifndef __has_attribute
\r
90 +#define __has_attribute(x) 0
\r
93 /* There's no point in continuing when we've detected that we've done
\r
94 * something wrong internally (as opposed to the user passing in a
\r