basic-improvements merge status
Jan Hubicka
jh@suse.cz
Wed Dec 18 05:44:00 GMT 2002
> On Dec 17, 2002, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> >> OK, I will disable the transfromation for the moment.
> > Thanks; that's fine.
>
> >>> how to do the configury bits. (One possibility is explicitly flags in
> >>> the tm.h file.)
> >>
> >> What do you think is the correct way to handle it?
>
> > I'm not sure; I'm not a configury expert. For a native build, I'd think
> > we could use autoconf; for a cross-build, that's a little tougher -- but
> > I'd think we could still do it.
>
> There's nothing we can do, really. The compiler is often built before
> the C library, so it can't detect properties in it. It has to know in
> advance what transformations it can or cannot do. I can't see
> anything much different from, say, some settings in gcc/config that
> enable or disable some of the functions, along with perhaps some
> consistency check that detects functions that are present but whose
> transformations are disabled, or those that are missing but enabled.
I've added config/* macros. I think I can easilly write testcae that
won't link when the conversion is incorrectly enabled, but I am not
quite sure I can do something when it is incorrectly disabled.
But since enabled is the default, I guess this is enought. Thanks!
Honza
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
> Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
> CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
> Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer
More information about the Gcc
mailing list