I am going to hijack this comment for a little rant about libc and independent compilers. Existing libc implementations have varying levels of hostility towards non-gcc/clang compilers. Glibc is probably the worst offender here, musl is the most compliant (but even there are some assumptions).
I am in no way accusing any of libc developers, they got much higher priority things to do than supporting obscure compilers, and this is my problem as a compiler developer, but nevertheless. For instance, glibc may simply override __attribute__ keyword with an empty macro, or omit packed attributes for non GNU C compilers (breaking epoll ABI along the way). Of course, strictly standard-compliant compiler may not have attributes at all, but in my opinion #warning/#error directive would have been more appropriate than silently producing ABI breakage.
Although, I have not engaged with glibc developers on these topics, and mostly documented encountered challenges as patches in my own test suite.
I am in no way accusing any of libc developers, they got much higher priority things to do than supporting obscure compilers, and this is my problem as a compiler developer, but nevertheless. For instance, glibc may simply override __attribute__ keyword with an empty macro, or omit packed attributes for non GNU C compilers (breaking epoll ABI along the way). Of course, strictly standard-compliant compiler may not have attributes at all, but in my opinion #warning/#error directive would have been more appropriate than silently producing ABI breakage.
Although, I have not engaged with glibc developers on these topics, and mostly documented encountered challenges as patches in my own test suite.