This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] GCC symdb (gcc/) 2 of 2
- From: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>
- To: Yunfeng ZHANG <zyf dot zeroos at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:56:15 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] GCC symdb (gcc/) 2 of 2
- References: <4df04b841001062120k21699fcbwe9fa771933a6415f@mail.gmail.com> <4df04b841001111824o6972874bw7d9f04c6905a855a@mail.gmail.com> <4df04b841001171822j3cfae831u1a336e05f63b683d@mail.gmail.com> <4B54282C.3000302@gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001181323170.14357@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <r2k4df04b841004201906ld9f6c035x90f34c7488414fe2@mail.gmail.com> <g2i4df04b841004201908q932ebe84yeb1d9e010ddcf4a6@mail.gmail.com> <z2l4df04b841004221832y4b7e2f7qa46d6e067f973d61@mail.gmail.com> <w2u4df04b841004221833u23adfe8azd161fb68fc070d9a@mail.gmail.com>
On 23/04/2010 02:33, Yunfeng ZHANG wrote:
> Does gcc still work on my patch?
Hi again, sorry for taking some time to respond, and thank you for being
persistent and patient.
You didn't supply a ChangeLog entry yet, so here is one for the patch:
gcc/ChangeLog:
* plugin.def (PLUGIN_CPP_TOKEN): New DEFEVENT.
(PLUGIN_C_TOKEN): Likewise.
* c-lex.c: Include plugin.h.
(c_lex_with_flags): Invoke PLUGIN_CPP_TOKEN callback.
* c-parser.c (CPP_KEYWORD): Delete from here...
(c_id_kind): ... likewise ...
(c_token): ... and likewise.
(c_lex_one_token): Invoke PLUGIN_C_TOKEN callback.
* plugin.c (register_callback): Handle PLUGIN_C_TOKEN and
PLUGIN_CPP_TOKEN events.
(invoke_plugin_callbacks): Likewise.
* plugins.texi (enum plugin_event): Mention new event types.
* c-common.h: Include c-pragma.h.
(CPP_KEYWORD): Define here instead ...
(c_id_kind): ... likewise ...
(c_token): ... and likewise.
Joseph, I don't have a fencepost account yet; can you verify that YZ's
paperwork has been processed, and if so review the original patch at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg00307.html
It looks basically right, but I think it needs a patch to Makefile.in to
adjust header dependencies? (Do we really still need to track these manually?)
cheers,
DaveK