This is the mail archive of the egcs@egcs.cygnus.com mailing list for the EGCS project. See the EGCS home page for more information.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 1.1.2 Prerelease



>>>>> Jeffrey A Law writes:

Jeff>   In message <u8ogmoalq0.fsf@arthur.rhein-neckar.de>you write:
>> With egcs 1.1.1 (egcs-2.91.60 19981201):
>> $ /opt/egcs/bin/gcc  -V egcs-2.91.60 -dM -E test-egcs.c  |grep UFC
>> #define _UFC_32_  
Jeff> Odd:

Jeff> gcc -V egcs-2.91.60 -dM -E foo.c | grep UFC
Jeff> foo.c:5: warning: integer constant out of range
Jeff> #define _UFC_64_  

Indeed odd.

Jeff> gcc -v -V egcs-2.91.60
Jeff> Reading specs from /usr/egcs/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/egcs-2.91.60/specs
Jeff> gcc driver version egcs-2.93.06 19990212 (gcc2 ss-980929 experimental) executing gcc version egcs-2.91.60

Jeff> Seems to me like your egcs-1.1.1 installation is behaving differently than
Jeff> it probably should.

Are you sure?  IMHO the test UINT_FAST32_MAX == UINT_FAST64_MAX should
be false and therefore _UFC_32_ should be defined.  Or does the
warning warns me that I've got undefined behaviour here?

My question remains is glibc 2.1 broken which uses the construct?

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger   aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de    jaeger@informatik.uni-kl.de
  for pgp-key finger ajaeger@aixd1.rhrk.uni-kl.de