fixincludes 2013-05-23

[Alexander Ivchenko]

2013/7/8 Bruce Korb <bruce.korb@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Alexander Ivchenko <aivchenk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Bruce,
>>
>> That was my original letter:
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Could you please take a look at the attached fixinclude patch
>>>that addresses the problem:
>>>
>>>"  We have test fail for gcc.dg/cpp/trad/include.c on Android. The
>>>reason for that is that
>>>-ftraditional-cpp is not expected to work on Android due to variadic
>>>macro (like #define __builtin_warning(x, y...))
>>>in standard headers and traditional preprocessor cannot handle them."
>>>
>>>is it ok for trunk?
>>>
>>>thanks,
>>>Alexander
>>
>> So I did ask whether it is ok or not. And then I got:
>>
>>> Be sure to ask, Ok? in your patch submittals.
>>>
>>> Ok.
>
> Oops.  Wrong word.  I said, "you didn't ask" and meant to say
> "you didn't get approval".  I didn't see the original request because
> there was no hint about "fixincludes" in the subject and I was not
> on the to/cc line.  So you asked, just not effectively enough for
> me to see it and you did _not_ get approval.
>
> Still:
>
>>>  Also, I prefer that the hacks get inserted
>>> alphabetically.  So, actually, there are a few small complaints.
>
>>> The patch looks pretty reasonable, but I think someone else
>>> should verify the obsolescence.  I also think it should be renamed to
>>> something like "obsolete_builtin_warning" because the current
>>> name gives no clue about what it really is.
>>>
>>> /*
>>>  *  Old Linux kernel's <compiler.h> header breaks Traditional CPP
>>>  */
>>> fix = {
>>>     hackname  = complier_h_tradcpp;
>>>     files     = linux/compiler.h;
>>>
>>>     select    = "#define __builtin_warning\\(x, y\\.\\.\\.\\) \\(1\\)";
>>>     c_fix     = format;
>>>     c_fix_arg = "/* __builtin_warning(x, y...) is obsolete */";
>>>
>>>     test_text = "#define __builtin_warning(x, y...) (1)";
>>> };
>
> Please be kind enough to belatedly finish up and we'll (I'll) reapply it.

I already renamed it and inserted alpabetically, as you said (the
patch is attached in my previous letter).
So the only thing left is "someone else should verify the obsolescence"..

When I firstly tried to disable the gcc.dg/cpp/trad/include.c for
Android, I got the following answer:

2013/1/9 Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>:

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Alexander Ivchenko <aivchenk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>   We have test fail for gcc.dg/cpp/trad/include.c on Android. The
>> reason for that is that
>> -ftraditional-cpp is not expected to work on Android due to variadic
>> macro (like #define __builtin_warning(x, y...))
>> in standard headers and traditional preprocessor cannot handle them.
>>   The attached patch disables that test.
>
> It sounds like it is better to fix the system headers instead.  Via a
> fixincludes for older headers and have the android folks fix them for
> newer releases.

Would that count for verifing? :)

thank you,
Alexander