This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: testsuite trigraphs.c failure due to cygwin <stdio.h>
- From: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- To: "'Ian Lance Taylor'" <iant at google dot com>, <tprince at computer dot org>
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <dave dot korn at artimi dot org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:50:09 +0100
- Subject: RE: testsuite trigraphs.c failure due to cygwin <stdio.h>
- References: <1180983949.c7dc1c1ctprince@myrealbox.com> <m3ira3l4st.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
On 04 June 2007 23:43, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Timothy C Prince" <tprince> writes:
[ quoting an earlier post of mine ]
>> So, am I correct to believe that we need to use plain 'inline' for c99
>> after gcc 4.4, and 'extern inline' before that? That is, I think I need
>> to write a test that looks like...
>>
>>
>> #if ((__GNUC__ > 4) || ((__GNUC__ == 4) && (__GNUC_MINOR__ >= 4))) \
>> && defined (__STRICT_ANSI__) && (__STRICT_ANSI__ != 0) \
>> && defined (__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L)
>> #define ELIDABLE_INLINE inline
>> #else
>> #define ELIDABLE_INLINE extern inline
>> #endif
>
> No, you shouldn't use anything along those lines. You should check
> for __GNUC_GNU_INLINE__ and __GNUC_STDC_INLINE__ as described in the
> documentation.
>
> In fact I mentioned this in my reply to the message you quote above:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg01093.html
>
> Ian
And I heeded your reply in the patch that eventually got applied to newlib.
This test passed when I "make check"ed 4.2.0 RC2. I'll see if I can
reproduce the problem.
Tim, are you sure you have the patched version of stdio.h in your
/usr/include, or are you trying a combined build?
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....