This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
testsuite trigraphs.c failure due to cygwin <stdio.h>
- From: "Timothy C Prince" <tprince at myrealbox dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, dave dot korn at artimi dot org
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:05:49 +0000
- Subject: testsuite trigraphs.c failure due to cygwin <stdio.h>
- Reply-to: tprince at computer dot org
-----Original Message-----
From: "Timothy C Prince" <tprince@myrealbox.com>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:20:34 +0000
In the message
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg01088.html
Dave Korn wrote:
So, am I correct to believe that we need to use plain 'inline' for c99 after gcc 4.4, and 'extern inline' before that? That is, I think I need to write a test that looks like...
#if ((__GNUC__ > 4) || ((__GNUC__ == 4) && (__GNUC_MINOR__ >= 4))) \
&& defined (__STRICT_ANSI__) && (__STRICT_ANSI__ != 0) \
&& defined (__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L)
#define ELIDABLE_INLINE inline
#else
#define ELIDABLE_INLINE extern inline
#endif
I'm not quite sure if I've got that right, though. I don't know if I need to test __STRICT_ANSI__ or not. I'm not sure if I should be testing for gnu99 mode as well as std99 or not. I want to match the exact conditions that are going to be tested to invoke the new standard behaviour; is this going to do it?
___________________________________________________
In gcc-4.3-20070601, a new problem came up. gcc.dg/cpp/trigraphs.c fails due to problems here in cygwin/newlib <stdio.h>, even with the change suggested above.
Tim Prince
Tim Prince