This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [RFA] - fix for GCC 3.x on Windows
- To: "'Robert Lipe'" <robertlipe at usa dot net>
- Subject: RE: [RFA] - fix for GCC 3.x on Windows
- From: "Billinghurst, David (CRTS)" <David dot Billinghurst at riotinto dot com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 02:39:25 -0000
- Cc: "'gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
I really don't mind where it goes. I just tested the patch and reported it
works for cygwin. I'd had a quick look at solving this myself and got
nowhere, so I don't feel qualified to express an opinion. A patch in
i386/gas.h should work, too.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Lipe [mailto:robertlipe@usa.net]
Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2001 12:30
To: Billinghurst, David (CRTS)
Subject: Re: [RFA] - fix for GCC 3.x on Windows
Billinghurst, David (CRTS) wrote:
> Got it. cygwin.h includes i386/gas.h includes i386/bsd.h
How, errr, nonobvious.
>From where I sit, putting this in bsd.h is as wrong as putting it in
att.h. It's a GAS feature and it belongs in gas.h. This would solve
it for both of us.
RJL
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Lipe [mailto:robertlipe@usa.net]
> Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2001 11:58
> To: Billinghurst, David (CRTS)
> Subject: Re: [RFA] - fix for GCC 3.x on Windows
>
>
> Billinghurst, David (CRTS) wrote:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-10/msg00510.html solves the
> ASM_QUAD
> > breakage for me on cygwin. I'd like to see it approved.
>
> Does a patch to bsd.h really impact cygwin?
>
> RJL