This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: G++ defining _GNU_SOURCE
- To: Jason Merrill <jason_merrill at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: G++ defining _GNU_SOURCE
- From: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:19:24 +0200
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>,Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>,Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20010608173954.A3346@redhat.com><20010607173644.A964@disaster.jaj.com><20010607155922U.mitchell@codesourcery.com><20010607180513.A1337@disaster.jaj.com><20010607163035K.mitchell@codesourcery.com><20010607183915.A1626@disaster.jaj.com><20010608173954.A3346@redhat.com>
At 13:58 10.06.2001, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > * config/alpha/linux.h (CPLUSPLUS_CPP_SPEC): New.
>
>Won't the config/linux.h definition suffice?
Nearly no linux platform uses this file since it's too x86 specific.
Actually I believe not even most of the *_SPEC defines belong in there,
they differ too much across all the linux targets.
On the patch itself, how can "-D_GNU_SOURCE %(cpp_cpu)" be correct?
Shouldn't that be %(cpp)? At least on PPC I have to use %(cpp), because
otherwise c++ won't get -D__BIG_ENDIAN__ (preventing compilation of
libstdc++) etc. and things like -posix, -pthread, -fpic/-fPIC won't produce
the proper defines _POSIX_SOURCE, _REENTRANT and __pic__/__PIC__.
Franz.