PPC -mlongcall, take two

[Neil Booth]

Zack Weinberg wrote:-

> > config/darwin* is supposed to be processor-neutral, and indeed
> > I have a set of patches for x86 Darwin almost ready to submit,
> > so it can't go in there.  Perhaps the right thing is to introduce
> > a second macro, and either invoke it directly from c-pragma.c,
> > or from the Darwin macro (it's all just registering of pragmas,
> > not finicky about ordering or anything like that).  The second
> > choice is lower impact, better since this whole situation is
> > kind of an oddball.
> 
> However, the second choice would require you to modify the cpu.h file
> of any target that has a Darwin port.  I think it makes more sense to
> have split CPU and OS pragma registration hooks in the same way that
> we now have split CPU and OS builtin-macro registration hooks.

(Will have when my patch is approved 8-)) Yes, I think that makes
sense - I think a fair bit of the tangledness of the config headers
comes from the lack of clear separation between OS and CPU bits.

> Come to think of it, is there any reason not to fold pragma
> registration into the builtin-macro registration hooks?
> 
> Neil, thoughts?

The name would certainly fit, being called ...BUILTINS, and from
my viewpoint the fewer hooks we have the cleaner and more reliable
a compiler we have.

I'm not quite sure what you'd do with the rest of init_pragma()
though?  If it weren't for registering the roots, it should be
trivial.

Neil.