This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [patch][mudflap] Mudflap cleanup

From: Olatunji Ruwase <tjruwase at google dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:04:13 -0700
Subject: Re: [patch][mudflap] Mudflap cleanup
References: <fe7fd8170907171244l428a35e3x27a1ecd0e2ccc604@mail.gmail.com> <84fc9c000907171300l2c43c6a6lbf3c91748bd02880@mail.gmail.com> <fe7fd8170907171433j477a1bfar90e22e9dbbcc5397@mail.gmail.com> <84fc9c000907171449sdd25c8bg6f506e4a94dfeb93@mail.gmail.com>

> IMHO either mf-runtime.h should not use #pragma redefine_extname
> (it could use asm("newname") with the same effect, available
> unconditionally), or we should unconditionally enable this pragma.
>

Chaning mf-runtime.h to use asm("newname") sounds like the option
since it would not impact anything else. I 'll work on this.

> Setting a target feature from non-target code looks bogus at least.
> (An obvious fix for your patch would be to keep the flag_mudflap
> check where it is).

I 'll keep the flag_mudflap for now.

Thanks

tunji
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>

References:
- [patch][mudflap] Mudflap cleanup
  - From: Olatunji Ruwase
- Re: [patch][mudflap] Mudflap cleanup
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [patch][mudflap] Mudflap cleanup
  - From: Olatunji Ruwase
- Re: [patch][mudflap] Mudflap cleanup
  - From: Richard Guenther

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]