This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: egcs-19980906 patches for bootstrap failures ...
- To: law at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: egcs-19980906 patches for bootstrap failures ...
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 23:52:29 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: egcs-patches at cygnus dot com
> From: Jeffrey A Law <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> In message <199809072113.RAA28280@caip.rutgers.edu>you write:
> > Here's a few patches for the latest snapshot egcs-19980906.
> > Okay to install?
> Ugh. Please don't send patches like this. Separate the patches
> in the future. I first thought it was just a java patch, but then
> read further down and found other stuff for libiberty and gcc itself.
> I personally took care of the INCLUDES stuff. I'll take care of
> find_classfile. We're not really ready to accept contributions for
> the java subdir yet (legal stuff, see the announcement).
Hmm, I had assumed one liners which were necessary to get egcs
to compile should be exempt from paperwork, regardless of whether they
were for gcc or java. Now I'll just post the errors and let you fix
them instead. :-/
BTW, it seems that the java/ dir is being built in stage1
for some reason. This is a build bug, right?
> Seems to me that "no_argument" is a namespace violation from getopt.h
> and that getopt.h should be fixed instead.
True. But is it practical to change these macros in getopt.h
considering how ubiquitous gnu getopt is? In the mean time, egcs won't
compile. What would you like me to do?
> > Mon Sep 7 16:23:09 1998 Kaveh R. Ghazi <email@example.com>
> > * toplev.c (print_switch_values): Make static to match prototype.
> > * mkstemp.c: Include config.h even when not IN_GCC. Wrap header
> > inclusions inside HAVE_*_H macros. Include ansidecl.h when not
> > IN_GCC.
> > * vasprintf.c: Include stdarg.h/varargs.h first.
> > * vprintf.c: Likewise.
> These are fine too.
Kaveh R. Ghazi Engagement Manager / Project Services
firstname.lastname@example.org Icon CMT Corp.