This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, ARM] Avoid pulling in unwinder for 64-bit division
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Julian Brown <julian at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:51:49 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM] Avoid pulling in unwinder for 64-bit division
- References: <20091027141012.40ff0d90@rex.config> <mcreionfua9.fsf@dhcp-172-17-9-151.mtv.corp.google.com> <20091028160320.23a90a9d@rex.config> <mcrws2fe8gm.fsf@dhcp-172-17-9-151.mtv.corp.google.com> <20091113142013.GA15675@caradoc.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:26:01AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Looking again at
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg01618.html
>> I don't understand why you want to change shared-object.mk or
>> static-object.mk.
>>
>> I'll approve the change to libgcc/Makefile.in if the ARM maintainers
>> approve the rest of the patch.
>
> This part is somewhat my fault; I can explain it.
>
> A variable in the body of the rule is expanded when the rule is run,
> not when the rule is defined (unlike a variable in the target or
> dependencies). The changes to *-object.mk save $(c_flags) when the
> rule is defined.
>
>>From Makefile.in:
>
> c_flags :=
> iter-items := $(LIB2ADD) $(LIB2ADD_ST)
> include $(iterator)
>
> ...
>
> c_flags := -fexceptions
> iter-items := $(sort $(LIB2ADDEHSTATIC) $(LIB2ADDEHSHARED))
> include $(iterator)
>
> Take a look at a libgcc build log. We're using -fexceptions for more
> than was intended.
Hmmm, OK, but I still don't see what that part of the patch has to do
with the rest of the patch. What sets c_flags-$@?
Ian