Re: gcc-4_2-branch: tiny issue with libiberty

[Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge@gnu.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1653 bytes --]

[Roland: for your information.]


Hello!

On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 10:58:30AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Nevertheless, I don't understand why you don't want to adapt the
> > parameters to what other systems (glibc, BSD) are using?  Why should
> > libiberty provide a (marginally) different version of `psignal'?
> 
> Well, for starters, it helps us find build problems like yours :-)
> 
> (I'm a big fan of choosing "fail loudly" over "fail quietly")

I absolutely agree to ``failing loudly'' instead of ``failing quietly'',
however I think that this is a non-argument for the issue at hand here,
as it only triggered, because that one prototype (of GNU libc's and BSD
libc's `psignal') happened to be different from the libiberty
implementation.  Or do you want to suggest that you're going to introduce
such function signature changes for every libiberty-provided symbol?  I
hope you don't.  :-)


> Since our psignal should only get used on platforms without their own
> psignal, why does it matter?

So that the next person to see through this part of the libiberty sources
doesn't wonder why the libiberty `psignal' is (marginally) different from
the GNU libc or BSD libc one.  I still uphold that my patch should be
installed, but that's not for me to decide, obviously.


As for the original report: this was while building a i586-pc-gnu cross
compiler from the gcc-4_2-branch sources.  I can't reproduce the original
problem anymore and already lost the previous `config.log' file.  I
suspect it was a bogon resulting from a stale `config.cache' file and
change in the target's libc.


Regards,
 Thomas

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]