This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: HAVE_GCC_VERSION fix
- To: phdm at macqel dot be
- Subject: Re: HAVE_GCC_VERSION fix
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:14:04 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rth at cygnus dot com
> From: "Philippe De Muyter" <phdm@macqel.be>
>
> >
> > Ugh. I though about this some more, and I can't see any way around it
> > other than to do as you suggested. This isn't so bad, I'll just have
> > to up the multiplier to at least 1000 because we are rather close to
> > 2.100 which would break your current algorithm. This would mean we
> > would have to write it as "#if GCC_VERSION >= 2007" instead of "207".
> >
> > So unless someone has another idea, I plan to do this over the
> > weekend.
> >
> > --Kaveh
>
> If it helps, here is the revised (1000 instead of 100) version.
>
> Wed Nov 10 15:02:35 1999 Philippe De Muyter <phdm@macqel.be>
>
> in include/
> * ansidecl.h (GCC_VERSION): New macro, replaces HAVE_GCC_VERSION.
> in gcc/
> * gansidecl.h, toplev.h: Use `GCC_VERSION' in #if, not HAVE_GCC_VERSION.
> * rtl.h, rtl.c, tree.h, tree.c, varray.h, varray.c, cppinit.c: Ditto.
> in gcc/cp/
> * cp-tree.h: Use `GCC_VERSION' in #if, not HAVE_GCC_VERSION.
> in gcc/f/
> * proj.h: Use `GCC_VERSION' in #if, not HAVE_GCC_VERSION.
Yes thanks, I had a busy weekend. :-)
I added some verbosity to the comments in ansidecl.h and normalized
the tests so we were consistent in avoiding needless uses of `!'.
Let me know if there are any problems.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Qwest Internet Solutions