Re: darwin cross compiling breakage

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> 
> On 09/06/2006, at 5:25 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> 
>> On Saturday 10 June 2006 02:03, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
>>> Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> writes:
>>>> On Jun 6, 2006, at 5:57 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>>>>> The recent changes to support code generation for the current
>>>>> machine on x86 has broken darwin's ppc x i386 compiler.
>>>>
>>>> Ping?
>>>>
>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg00292.html
>>>
>>> This is OK, except lose the APPLE LOCAL markers.
>>
>> How can this be OK when people raise issues with the patch?
> 
> "OK" does not mean that we have perfect consensus and everyone agrees. 
> It means that on balance it is better to have this patch than not.

I think it's inappropriate for you to overrule Ian without trying to
build consensus, given that this is a change to the IA32 back end.  You
have GWP, and Ian does not, so it is true that you can change i386.h
without approval, and that Ian cannot; in that sense, you outrank Ian.

But, I think Ian's comment:

> Perhaps an intermediate approach would be to introduce a new macro,
> like X86_SUPPORT_LOCAL, and then define that if CROSS_COMPILE is not
> defined and __i386__ is defined, with a clear comment.

suggests a path forward which is no harder than the one posted, but
considerably clearer, as well as avoiding code duplication.

Why not ask Mike to make that change?

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713