This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [RFA:] fix lack of #ifdef HAVE_C99_RUNTIME in builtins-20.c and elsewhere

From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at apple dot com>
To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:58:45 -0700
Subject: Re: [RFA:] fix lack of #ifdef HAVE_C99_RUNTIME in builtins-20.c and elsewhere
References: <200707060150.l661odpX020950@ignucius.se.axis.com>

On 05/07/2007, at 6:50 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:

From: Geoff Keating <geoffk@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 18:43:28 -0700

Well, that makes sense; but then can you arrange for
check_effective_target_c99_math to distinguish between the case of "I
included builtins-config.h and it said there were no C99 functions"
and "builtins-config.h says I have a testsuite error"?


That's not how the check_effective_* functions work; they don't
have access to the test they are "called" from.  Or maybe I
misunderstood your question.

Hmmm. I guess what you really want to do is to have the check_effective_* pass the appropriate flags to ensure C99 support. Then if the testcase uses it but doesn't pass the right flags, it will (correctly) fail.

References:
- Re: [RFA:] fix lack of #ifdef HAVE_C99_RUNTIME in builtins-20.c and elsewhere
  - From: Hans-Peter Nilsson

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