This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, libstdc++] Add missing free-standing headers to install rule
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
- To: Bernd Edlinger <bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:10:15 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, libstdc++] Add missing free-standing headers to install rule
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <VI1PR07MB0911F2B49AE4FBDDD72EEA2EE4B20 at VI1PR07MB0911 dot eurprd07 dot prod dot outlook dot com> <AM4PR07MB1571A35FB57B155CD9C79B83E48A0 at AM4PR07MB1571 dot eurprd07 dot prod dot outlook dot com> <AM4PR07MB157179FD0C211DC8E23463F8E4800 at AM4PR07MB1571 dot eurprd07 dot prod dot outlook dot com> <20160322143612 dot GM3805 at redhat dot com> <AM4PR07MB1571341CBC0AABCE48D5EFC3E4800 at AM4PR07MB1571 dot eurprd07 dot prod dot outlook dot com>
On 22/03/16 18:29 +0000, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Yes. Maybe changing concept_check.h would be better, because
I see 3 different instances of bits/c++config.h:
$prefix/arm-eabi/include/c++/6.0.0/arm-eabi/fpu/bits/c++config.h
$prefix/arm-eabi/include/c++/6.0.0/arm-eabi/bits/c++config.h
$prefix/arm-eabi/include/c++/6.0.0/arm-eabi/thumb/bits/c++config.h
But they're all generated from the same include/bits/c++config in the
source tree, so that shouldn't matter.
while I only see one use of _GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS:
$prefix/arm-eabi/include/c++/6.0.0/bits/concept_check.h
I'm fine with changing it there. We should also document that the
macro doesn't do anything for freestanding implementations.