This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: serious libgcc regression added recently


From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:22:51 +0100

> On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 11:41:08PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> --- a/libgcc/configure.ac
>> +++ b/libgcc/configure.ac
>> @@ -255,11 +255,12 @@ AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether assembler supports CFI directives], [libgcc_cv_cfi],
>>    [libgcc_cv_cfi=yes],
>>    [libgcc_cv_cfi=no])])
>>  
>> -# Check 32bit or 64bit for x86.
>> +# Check 32bit or 64bit for x86 and sparc.
>>  case ${host} in
>> -i?86*-*-* | x86_64*-*-*)
>> +i?86*-*-* | x86_64*-*-* | sparc*-*-*)
>>    cat > conftest.c <<EOF
>> -#ifdef __x86_64__
>> +#if defined(__x86_64__) || \
>> +    (defined(__sparc__) && defined(__arch64__))
>>  host_address=64
>>  #else
>>  host_address=32
> 
> I think much better would be to handle sparc*/s390*/powerpc* differently
> here, just using #ifdef __LP64__ test.  i?86/x86_64 is different because
> of the third weirdo multilib option.

Yes, using __LP64__ for non-x86 is much better.  Then we can completely
remove the ${host} conditional and nobody will have to hack on this
piece of configure code ever again.

I'll try to find time ot hack this together if nobody beats me to it.


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