tech-toolchain archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: pcc and build system

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 06:11:21PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008, Gregory McGarry wrote:
> > How should alternative compilers be integrated into the build system?
> > Can patches like the one below be sprinkled round the the build tree
> > and changed later to define HAVE_PCC?
> In general, it would be nice if changes could be centralised, such as by
> adding appropriate macros to <sys/cdefs.h>, and having other code use
> such macros.  I don't mind seeing a maze of #if (this_compiler) && !
> (that_compiler) || (other_compiler) in sys/cdefs.h, but I don't want to
> see it replicated in many Makefiles or other headers.
> > +.if defined(HAVE_PCC)
> > +CPPFLAGS+=     -D_U_=""
> > +.elif defined(HAVE_GCC)
> >  CPPFLAGS+=     -D_U_="__attribute__((unused))"
> > +.endif
> In this particular case, <sys/cdefs.h> already defines "__unused", and
> I think code that makes direct use of __attribute__((unused)) should be
> changed to use __unused instead.

The point here is that this is 3rd-party code that already uses the
_U_ macro internally.

So I think the change should just be to have CPPFLAGS use __unused for
the definition of _U_.

However, this strikes me as odd because cdefs.h uses an empty define
for __attribute__(whatever), so I wonder what the initial issue was.

Quentin Garnier - -
"See the look on my face from staying too long in one place
[...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling"
KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.

Attachment: pgpGBhjBFjOjm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index