From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26226 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2010 17:04:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 26216 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Dec 2010 17:04:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:04:48 +0000 From: "amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/46489] tree optimizer and frontend files use target macros X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: other X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:04:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg02381.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46489 --- Comment #5 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke 2010-12-20 17:04:39 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > This sounds like a nice approach for making sure it is safe to remove a > tm.h include from a particular source file - if combined with generating a > list of every target (every triplet with significant differences in how > config.gcc / libgcc/config.host configure it, whether in the set of > headers or the set of tm_defines) so you can run tests automatically for > all targets - I fear our configure system is turing complete, and thus such a list is not computable. But by testing at least one configuration per target architecture, we already get a useful test coverage. I can also make a script to search for every macro that is documented with @defmac, so the remaining uncertainty would be for undocumented macros that only appear in specific configuration variants. I think a slight risk to break something where undocumented macros are involved is acceptable in phase 1/2, as long as the breakage is obvious during the gcc build - without the target macro poisoning, we could have obscure changes in behaviour that could be very hard to debug. > it may avoid the need to check for every macro with one of > the properties I identified as meaning a target macro, that is used > anywhere in that source file or any header it includes. I'd be more > doubtful about actually checking in a #include of tm-poison.h on trunk > (the code to generate it, however, might be useful to check in). Yes, the idea is to auto-generate the file.