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