This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: basic-improvements merge status
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>,Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:46:35 +0100
- Subject: Re: basic-improvements merge status
- References: <20021217083819.GP3138@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >OK, I will disable the transfromation for the moment.
> Thanks; that's fine.
> >>how to do the configury bits. (One possibility is explicitly flags in
> >>the tm.h file.)
> >What do you think is the correct way to handle it?
> I'm not sure; I'm not a configury expert. For a native build, I'd think
> we could use autoconf; for a cross-build, that's a little tougher -- but
> I'd think we could still do it.
> The simplest approach would be something like TARGET_MEM_FUNCTIONS.
OK, I will create updated patch with TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS macro and set
it via linux.h file. Does this sound sane?
In next iteration we may add autoconf bits for this, but I would like to
hear opinion from someone more familiar with it than I do first.
> Mark Mitchell email@example.com
> CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com