Re: PATCH: Change OPTION_MASK_XXX/OPTION_XXX to MASK_XXX/TARGET_XXX

["Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at gmail dot com>]

On 5/24/07, H. J. Lu <hjl@lucon.org> wrote:
> > This patch should be split into two patches, the patch that changes
> > shared infrastructure and target dependant patch. I think that the
> > best way is to get infrastructure patch approved and committed first,
> > after that we can add target dependant patch(es) that uses this
> > infrastructure. The infrastructure change should solve ppc problems,
> > too (as mrs said).
The infrastructure is already there as evidence of OPTION_GLIBC.


Also you did not do a "grep OPTION_GLIBC config/*/*". So this breaks a
couple of GNU/Linux targets including powerpc64-linux-gnu which is one
of the targets I test on a lot.
Here is a result of the grep:
config/alpha/linux.h:#define TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS (OPTION_GLIBC)
config/alpha/linux.h:#define TARGET_HAS_SINCOS (OPTION_GLIBC)
config/rs6000/linux64.h:#define TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS (OPTION_GLIBC)
config/rs6000/linux64.h:#define TARGET_HAS_SINCOS (OPTION_GLIBC)
config/rs6000/linux.h:#define TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS (OPTION_GLIBC)
config/rs6000/linux.h:#define TARGET_HAS_SINCOS (OPTION_GLIBC)
config/sparc/linux64.h:#define TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS (OPTION_GLIBC)
config/sparc/linux64.h:#define TARGET_HAS_SINCOS (OPTION_GLIBC)
config/sparc/linux.h:#define TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS (OPTION_GLIBC)
config/sparc/linux.h:#define TARGET_HAS_SINCOS (OPTION_GLIBC)


Oh by the way, I don't like this change, why not just use OPTION_*
form like what is already done with OPTION_GLIBC.  So what if 4.3 is
different from 4.2, that is not our problem that people want to back
port stuff.  We should get a good solution for the future and I don't
think the name of TARGET_* is a good solution at all.  In fact it is a
bad solution as then we don't know if they are part of the normal
target mask.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski