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] |
2011/3/8 DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>: > >> I think we don't need filename_dirchr, only filename_dirrchr. > > I see no harm in having both, for completeness, though. ?One could > argue they should be in separate files, but they're trivial functions > on non-dos-fs systems. > > What bothers me about this patch is that we're adding yet another set > of functions that don't discriminate between the host filesystem, the > target filesystem, and the build filesystem. > Ok, I got the point about having here implementations which can handle both cases. So I added an additional argument to those functions to specify for which file-system flavor is searched. I don't see right now much use for this difference, but well, it won't harm to have this ability too. 2011-03-12 Kai Tietz * filename.h (filename_dirchr_host): New macro. (filename_dirrchr_host): New macro. (filename_dirchr): New prototype. (filename_dirrchr): New prototype. 2011-03-12 Kai Tietz * filename_chr.c: New file. * Makefile.in (CFILES): Add filename_chr.c file. (REQUIRED_OFILES): Add filename_chr.o (filename_chr.o): New rule. * functions.texi: Regenerated. Tested for x86_64-w64-mingw32, and x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Ok for apply? Regards, Kai
Attachment:
libiberty_dirsep.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |