This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [build] Move MD_UNWIND_SUPPORT to toplevel libgcc
- From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- To: Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>, Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>, Douglas Rupp <rupp at gnat dot com>, Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>, John David Anglin <dave dot anglin at nrc-cnrc dot gc dot ca>, Steve Ellcey <sje at cup dot hp dot com>, Kai Tietz <ktietz at redhat dot com>, Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 09:46:19 -0700
- Subject: Re: [build] Move MD_UNWIND_SUPPORT to toplevel libgcc
- References: <yddr57gry79.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> <43A4E364-0CF4-445E-9AFD-19E52361FCFD@comcast.net> <yddd3ixczhj.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
On Jun 1, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Both TARGET_64BIT_DEFAULT and TARGET_BI_ARCH live in gcc only, so at
> least in the medium term, we need different tests here.
Ah, ick. Oh well... The next more general rule would be something like: one can set a feature (implicit -D__GCC_DO_UNWIND_BLA) in the compiler when TARGET_64BIT_DEFAULT and TARGET_BI_ARCH are set a certain way, and then in libgcc, one can just test that feature directly. Ick, I hate inventing feature names here...
> I can certainly do it this way for now, but if we could do away with the
> tests completely, that would be cleaner.
Agreed, though, I don't believe the test is superfluous.