This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [ada] rts support for alpha-linux
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Arnaud Charlet <charlet at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:39:37 -0800
- Subject: Re: [ada] rts support for alpha-linux
- References: <20050118201052.GA8131@twiddle.net> <20050118205837.GA37492@adacore.com>
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:58:37PM +0100, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> Did you verify the differences in term of size and alignment by e.g.
> compiling s-osinte.adb with -gnatR3 ?
No. What does that do, and what would I be looking for?
> Perhaps you could post diffs between the original linux files you started
> from and the new alpha variants for analysis ? I am quite sure we can find
> a way to keep a single file instead of duplicating.
Many of the signal and errno numbers are different. A few of the
other sigaction bits are different. Those are the main bits.
> Same question for a-intnam.ads
Alpha does not have SIGUNUSED, SIGLOST, or SIGSTKFLT. Neither do
many other Linux targets, but s-osinte.adb isn't correct for them.
> system.ads is actually an exception to the rule listed above: we do not
> want to share system files between targets, this has caused only
> confusion in the past trying to do so: we always end up sooner or later
> with parameters that are different and that are not properly
> updated/maintained because the system file is shared.
Except for Tick, all little-endian 64-bit Linux targets should be
the same. Add Bit_Order and all 64-bit Linux targets should be
the same. Add the <limits.h> equivalent bits, and *all* Linux
targets should be the same.
Yet more reasons that all of this data should be extracted from
/usr/include instead of specified by hand.