[Bug target/19548] [3.4/4.0 regression] RTEMS CPP specs not merged from 3.2/3.2 branches

[corsepiu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From corsepiu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-21 10:04 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> commit was not there so I would assume this could clarify as obvious.
OK, thanks.

However, one thought:

In gcc < 3.4 CPP_OS_RTEMS_SPEC had been part of svr4.h.

What do you think about moving CPP_OS_RTEMS_SPEC into rs6000/rtems.h, i.e. about
a applying this patch to gcc-4.0:

Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rtems.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rtems.h,v
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -r1.20 rtems.h
--- gcc/config/rs6000/rtems.h   17 Oct 2004 18:09:44 -0000      1.20
+++ gcc/config/rs6000/rtems.h   21 Jan 2005 10:02:12 -0000
@@ -38,3 +38,20 @@

 #undef CPP_OS_DEFAULT_SPEC
 #define CPP_OS_DEFAULT_SPEC "%(cpp_os_rtems)"
+
+#define CPP_OS_RTEMS_SPEC "\
+%{!mcpu*:  %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dmpc750} } }\
+%{mcpu=403:  %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dppc403}  } } \
+%{mcpu=505:  %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dmpc505}  } } \
+%{mcpu=601:  %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dppc601}  } } \
+%{mcpu=602:  %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dppc602}  } } \
+%{mcpu=603:  %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dppc603}  } } \
+%{mcpu=603e: %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dppc603e} } } \
+%{mcpu=604:  %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dmpc604}  } } \
+%{mcpu=750:  %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dmpc750}  } } \
+%{mcpu=821:  %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dmpc821}  } } \
+%{mcpu=860:  %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dmpc860}  } }"
+
+#undef  SUBSUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS
+#define SUBSUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS \
+  { "cpp_os_rtems",            CPP_OS_RTEMS_SPEC }

It would avoid polluting other targets' spec with RTEMS details while it should
not make a difference for powerpc-rtems.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19548