This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Patch: XStormy16 -vs- Dwarf-2 minimum instruction size
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 20 Feb 2002 12:50:25 -0700
- Subject: Re: Patch: XStormy16 -vs- Dwarf-2 minimum instruction size
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0202201913590.6147-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>
- Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:
Joseph> When removing target macros, also poison them in system.h to
Joseph> avoid them reappearing in new ports.
Thanks.
In this case the macro in question remains in dwarf2out.c.
Wouldn't poisoning it cause problems here?
Also, the macro it is now unconditionally defined.
So if it is defined by a target, we'll get a macro redefinition error
when compiling dwarf2out.c.
Given these considerations, should I still poison it?
Tom