This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Patch to make trunk compile on m68k-next-nextstep3 with 3 = 3.2
- To: law at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: Patch to make trunk compile on m68k-next-nextstep3 with 3 = 3.2
- From: "Melissa O'Neill" <oneill at cs dot sfu dot ca>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:58:16 -0700
- cc: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>, EGCS-Patches<egcs-patches at cygnus dot com>, "Melissa O'Neill" <oneill at cs dot sfu dot ca>
- References: <email@example.com>
> No. We should support both 3.2 and 3.3. Why should we treat NeXTStep any
> differently than other systems which have problems specific to certain versions
> of the OS?
Maybe I wasn't clear. I was saying that we could require that 3.2 users
upgrade their assembler (and not that they should upgrade their entire
OS). Since the assembler is free software, they can get the version from
3.3 (or even compile it from the source for last NeXT OS, 4.2). EGCS
routinely has requirements about what assembler people can be using (see
the FAQ), so I didn't see this as treating NEXTSTEP differently from
other operating systems.
... in another message, Jeff adds:
> Instead of having different configs for 3.2 vs 3.3, maybe we should
> be testing for gas functionality and enabling the new code only when
> we detect the specific gas feature that we need.
Well, that's fine too. NeXT's Assemblers prior to 3.3 don't support the
`.section' or `.zerofill' directives, so that's what we'd test (we only
use the former right now). NeXT's `.section' directive is likely
different from other GNU assemblers, and looks like this:
^ ^ ^--- flags
| \-------------- section name
\--------------------- segment name
Under 3.3 and later, a file with just a section directive like that above
will assemble, but it should bomb under 3.2 and before. I don't (currently)
know enough about autoconf to put in a test for this in ./configure myself