> Except to the extent which they're not, which is clear from the fact that I was able to recognize that as clang's header.
I don't object to marking it as clang-derived. I can also copy the copyright notice.
> Why should the Tiny _C_ Compiler's headers be compatible with c++?
Because this is the direction which will most certainly be reflected in the future standards, in C++ for sure. If it's not difficult to keep it compatible, I don't see why it should not be compatible. I cannot predict how and why this header can be re-used, though.
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, Dmitry Selyutin wrote:
> They all look mostly the same: a bunch of defines, typedefs and compiler
> intrinsics or extensions.
Except to the extent which they're not, which is clear from the fact that
I was able to recognize that as clang's header.
> Also, gcc's stdatomic.h is totally incompatible with C++, which is per
> se a good reason to avoid it.
Why should the Tiny _C_ Compiler's headers be compatible with c++?
-E