From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24524 invoked by alias); 5 May 2005 18:16:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24482 invoked from network); 5 May 2005 18:16:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO palrel10.hp.com) (156.153.255.245) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 May 2005 18:16:24 -0000 Received: from smtp1.ptp.hp.com (smtp1.ptp.hp.com [15.1.28.250]) by palrel10.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6F1631 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 11:16:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hpsje.cup.hp.com (hpsje.cup.hp.com [15.244.96.221]) by smtp1.ptp.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E710A150952 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 18:16:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from sje@localhost) by hpsje.cup.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_24419+JAGae58098)/8.7.3 TIS Messaging 5.0) id LAA17571 for binutils@gcc.gnu.org; Thu, 5 May 2005 11:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 18:58:00 -0000 From: Steve Ellcey Message-Id: <200505051816.LAA17571@hpsje.cup.hp.com> To: binutils@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Question about another IA64 HP-UX build problem Reply-To: sje@cup.hp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00195.txt.bz2 OK, I thought I had found all the IA64 HP-UX build problems but I was just building gas and not binutils. When building binutils I ran into a problem with src/binutils/strings.c, this code has: #ifdef HAVE_GETC_UNLOCKED c = getc_unlocked (stream); #else c = getc (stream); #endif Now, on HP-UX the macro HAVE_GETC_UNLOCKED is defined but I only see the declaration when compiling with -D_REENTRENT. This is off by default so I get an 'implicit declaration' error. My question is, why is this the only use of getc_unlocked in binutils? I see other uses of getc in nlmheader.y, readelf.c, resrc.c, sysdump.c, and windres.c, but none of them have this ifdef structure. Is there a reason for this? It looks like GCC has a way to handle this and I can probably fix it with the same mechanism but I first wanted to find out if there is a reason for having getc_unlocked in the first place. Is it a performance issue? Steve Ellcey sje@cup.hp.com