This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: HPPA STMP_FIXPROTO patch
- From: Jeff Law <law at porcupine dot slc dot redhat dot com>
- To: sje at cup dot hp dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:57:00 -0600
- Subject: Re: HPPA STMP_FIXPROTO patch
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <200208281642.JAA21591@hpsje.cup.hp.com>, Steve Ellcey writes:
>I have been building the PA32 and PA64 HP-UX 11.* compilers for a while
>now with STMP_FIXPROTO set to null and have had no problems. Doing this
>avoids creating some extra GCC specific header files because some
>headers do still contain un-prototyped declarations but GCC will never
>see them due to the predefined macros that are set when running GCC.
>
>Setting STMP_FIXPROTO avoids unnecessarily creating modified versions of
>those header files.
>
>I found a makefile fragment, t-bsd, that sets STMP_FIXPROTO to nothing
>and doesn't do anything else so I used it in my patch. I suppose we
>could create a new file or change the name of this t-* file if we didn't
>like using a "bsd" makefile fragment on HP-UX but a number of other
>targets already use it (-pro*, -osf* -rtems*).
>
>Comments?
>
>
>2002-08-27 Steve Ellcey <sje@cup.hp.com>
>
> * config.gcc (hppa*64*-*-hpux11*): Add t-bsd to makefile.
> (hppa1.1-*-hpux11* | hppa2*-*-hpux11*): Ditto.
> (hppa1.0-*-hpux11*): Ditto.
Well, I'd like to install this, but it makes me very nervous given the
multitude of problems we've had with the HP include files in the past.
What end-user value do we get by installing this patch?
jeff