This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: mips cc1 spec vs. fp reg defines vs. assembly code

From: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
To: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>
Cc: cgd at broadcom dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 09 Jun 2002 13:47:32 -0700
Subject: Re: mips cc1 spec vs. fp reg defines vs. assembly code
References: <yov5660tcfaw.fsf@broadcom.com><1023652668.13663.12.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com> <20020609201923.GA31939@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>

On Sun, 2002-06-09 at 13:19, Neil Booth wrote:
> Eric Christopher wrote:-
> 
> > +      if (preprocessing_asm_p ())				\
> > +	{							\
> > +          builtin_define_std ("LANGUAGE_ASSEMBLY");		\
> > +	  builtin_define_std ("_LANGUAGE_ASSEMBLY");		\
> > +	}							\
> > +      else if (c_language == clk_c)				\
> > +	{							\
> > +          builtin_define_std ("LANGUAGE_C");			\
> > +	  builtin_define_std ("_LANGUAGE_C");			\
> 
> The _std's are not wanted for the 2 "_LANGUAGE" versions.

doh. Thought I changed that. Thanks :)

-eric

-- 
I will not carve gods

References:
- mips cc1 spec vs. fp reg defines vs. assembly code
  - From: cgd
- Re: mips cc1 spec vs. fp reg defines vs. assembly code
  - From: Eric Christopher
- Re: mips cc1 spec vs. fp reg defines vs. assembly code
  - From: Neil Booth

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