From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@zembu.com>
To: mark@codesourcery.com
Cc: rth@cygnus.com, binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Patches for IRIX6 N32-ABI ld
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:00:00 -0000
Message-id: <19990626204616.9890.qmail@daffy.airs.com>
References: <19990626112510.A21222@cygnus.com> <19990626120519O.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <19990626192703.9669.qmail@daffy.airs.com> <19990626134622L.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <19990626134622L.mitchell@codesourcery.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-q2/msg00359.html

   From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
   Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 13:46:22 -0700

       Ian> In other words, I think either SGI_COMPAT should continue to
       Ian> be defined as a clearly boolean value (e.g., 1) or you should
       Ian> modify all the tests of SGI_COMPAT to work in some different
       Ian> manner.

   I understand what you're saying.  But, this is a common programming
   idiom, and well understood.  How about explicitly setting `sct_none'
   to zero:

     enum {
       sct_none = 0,
       ...
     }

   together with a comment?

I'm not sure why you want to bother, probably because I haven't seen
the rest of your patches.

Why not have two macros, one for general SGI compatibility, namely the
existing SGI_COMPAT, and one new one you can use to check just which
sort of SGI compatibility you want for a particular BFD?

Ian