Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 12:54:10 +0000 From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Apple's GCC 42 enhancements (was Re: [CFT] Experimental gcc update). Message-ID: <3826345B-E783-43C7-B4AB-A05C95C1A8A2@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <529127F8.5080606@FreeBSD.org> References: <528A924A.8050904@FreeBSD.org> <529127F8.5080606@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 Nov 2013, at 22:11, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> wrote: > I have particular interest in -fwritable-strings > and the block support, mostly with the idea of making our gcc > somewhat more compatible to clang. I would absolutely love to see our GCC have blocks support. It would be = very nice to be able to use blocks in libc. =20 I have some macros that allow code to call blocks even when compiled = with a compiler that doesn't support them, but having native blocks = support would be fantastic. It's worth noting that Apple's libc = includes a few _b variants of standard library functions: scandir_b err_set_exit_b fts_open_b glob_b atexit_b bsearch_b heapsort_b mergesort_b psort_b qsort_b These all do the same as their non-_b-suffixed equivalents, but take a = block as an argument instead of a function pointer. Adding them has = been on my todo list for a while, and this would give me a strong = incentive to do so... David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3826345B-E783-43C7-B4AB-A05C95C1A8A2>