This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Add target hook in C front end
- From: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, zack at codesourcery dot com, rth at redhat dot com, neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk
- Date: 17 Dec 2001 13:32:28 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add target hook in C front end
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Doing something maintainable, that works as present with a __SIZE_TYPE__
> macro, is essentially straightforward, given the removal of the separate
> cpp0 executable. Just add some calls to cpp_define, and remove all the
> attempts to define __SIZE_TYPE__ in all the specs. Note that GCC's
> <stddef.h> explicitly defines __SIZE_TYPE__ to a default if it isn't
> already defined; there is quite likely to be third party GCC-specific code
> that does this as well, expecting it to be a macro.
Since we still have a cpp0 for now this solution won't work. Now, if I
_could_ assume that cpp0 doesn't exist then this would be fine. I didn't
think I could do that though.
> (For some reason, there are __builtin_size_t (which is the internal
> sizetype, not the external c_size_type_node) and __builtin_ptrdiff_t
> typedefs, but I don't know what they're meant to be used for.)
I saw these and wasn't quite sure either. Threw me for a loop earlier.
> The problem is to determine the signed type corresponding to size_t, and
> the unsigned type corresponding to ptrdiff_t, which are required for
> certain C99 formats. I haven't got anything better than the current
> kludges in gcc.dg/format/format.h.
Yes, I just saw those. Explains why those tests are failing for sure :)
Fridays are not "pants optional"