This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: patch for Re: arm-rtems vs. arm-elf
- To: joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com
- Subject: Re: patch for Re: arm-rtems vs. arm-elf
- From: Philip Blundell <pb at nexus dot co dot uk>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:02:47 +0100
- cc: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <3B600B04.99D91D69@OARcorp.com> <E15Pq5r-0006J7-00@kings-cross.london.uk.eu.org> <3B617907.C99CEAB6@OARcorp.com>
>-#define CPP_PREDEFINES "-Darm -Darm_elf -Drtems -D__rtems__ -D__ELF__ \
>+#define CPP_PREDEFINES "-Darm_elf -Drtems -D__rtems__ -D__ELF__ \
You almost certainly don't want "arm_elf" either.
>I recall being told that -Drtems and -D__rtems__ are redundant.
>Should one of them be removed.
Yes. If you have "-Drtems" then I think you get __rtems__ automatically. But
-Drtems is generally undesirable anyway because it pollutes the user's
namespace. So I suggest you remove that one and stick with just -D__rtems__.
>/* Get machine-independent configuration parameters for RTEMS. */
>#include <rtems.h>
>
>Isn't the proper thing to do now is specify multiple tm_files
>in configure.in?
Yup. But that's just a stylistic issue. I certainly wouldn't worry about it
on the branch, though you might want to change to the new style on the trunk.
p.