Subject: Re: EGCS 1.1 UPDATE rev. 2
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/19/1998 13:36:27
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
: > Actually, I have one better - we assert the presence of format(__kprintf__),
: > a native-gcc hack, by defining __KPRINTF_ATTRIBUTE__ in the cpp spec.
: > Something like that would be useful here.
: I'm not convinced this is the correct approach. It is not so bad for
: kprintf, because if the attribute is not available, all that happens is
: that you loose potential warnings. But for return_in_regs, the way your
: code gets compiled will change.
Well, if you assume GCC 2.8 has it, that's not quite right either, but I
suppose the best behavior there is to bomb out if the attribute is
unrecognized. (Don't want to bomb on 2.7, of course.)
-- Todd Vierling (Personal email@example.com; Bus. firstname.lastname@example.org)