This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] style fix for aix51.h and rs6000/mach.h
At 12:52 03.05.2001, David O'Brien wrote:
>On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:41:37PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
> > You ask on the lists on what is intended?
>
>I don't need to for what I was doing -- a __STYLE__ cleanup.
Yes, I know. Nevertheless it seems like mentioning potential problems you
run across during your style cleanup would be a very good thing and _I_
would certainly expect that.
> > You ask me to clean up stuff caused by you not following some simple rules?
>
>Ok, then I'm asking you to now go thru gcc/config/*/ and make it so none
>of the platform headers include any other header. This is the simple
>rule, and you'll see it isn't followed by large extent.[*]
Well, if you look at the changlogs you'll see we certainly have the same
goal here. I guess the rs6000 dir is currently the cleanest in this respect.
>In the rs6000 directory lynx.h needs to be unwound. config/linux.h also
>needs to be unwound (stop including svr4). arm/ needs a lot of cleanup
>too.
Fixing rs6000/lynx.h will be messy and I don't know who can test it, that's
why I left it as-is. You have to preprocess old and new header style and
compare the resulting #define's one by one.
config/linux.h is really a config/linuxx86.h, so fixing it means fixing x86
at the same time. A good start is usually to remove nearly all #undef's
from config/elfos.h and config/svr4.h, that brings up a lot of problems
quickly. Maybe it should be policy that all #undefs in the header files
below config/ need to be reasonably documented. I just see that a lot of
new #undef's entered elfos.h recently, that shouldn't happen anymore. I'll
prepare a patch that adds a comment at the top of elfos.h that there should
be now new #undefs in there, cause they most probably point to an inclsuion
order violation.
I can say nothing about the ARM dir.
On aix51.h, I guess thats just an oversight, as it went in shortly after my
removal of nearly all #include directives in rs6000/ back in January.
David, can you comment if this double inclusion is really necessary? It
looks like a lot of the undefs in aix51.h are solely necessary because of
the double inclusion...
Franz.