This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gen-num-limits runs forever on GNU/Linux/sparc (Red Hat Linux 6.2)
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: gen-num-limits runs forever on GNU/Linux/sparc (Red Hat Linux 6.2)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: 02 Feb 2001 07:52:48 +0100
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <Gabriel dot Dos-Reis at cmla dot ens-cachan dot fr>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>, Mark Kettenis <kettenis at wins dot uva dot nl>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200101311557.f0VFvCR04089@debye.wins.uva.nl> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Alexandre Oliva <email@example.com> writes:
| On Feb 1, 2001, Gabriel Dos Reis <Gabriel.Dos-Reis@cmla.ens-cachan.fr> wrote:
| > Alexandre Oliva <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
| > | On Feb 1, 2001, Gabriel Dos Reis <email@example.com> wrote:
| > |
| > | > Alexandre Oliva <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
| > |
| > | > [...]
| > |
| > | > | Tested on sparc-unknown-linux-gnu, with and without -DHAVE_SIGSETJMP.
| > | > | The latter compiled, but would never complete, as before. Ok to
| > | > | install?
| > |
| > | > Alexandre, can't it be possible to detect HAVE_SIGSETJUMP through
| > | > autoconf? I would prefer an autocoonf-based solution.
| > |
| > | Well... Sure it is. I just didn't think it was worth the trouble.
| > | We'd have to start #including <config.h> in gen-num-limits.cc, for
| > | one.
| > Hmm, I think at some point, gen-num-limits.cc (which needs a clean up)
| > would require more collaboration from the compiler, so #including a
| > <config.h> isn't a big deal.
| And the other problem is that mknumeric_limits runs before config.h is
| built :-)
In the case of mknumeric_limits we _just_ need to test for
`sigsetjump', we should not have to wait until the completion of
totality of the features we test for.
| Well, confdefs.h could do instead...
That would be sufficient.
| Or we could delay the execution of mknumeric_limits to a Makefile
| rule. Thoughts?
I would like we keep running mknumeric_limits at confiigure-time.
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com