From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17298 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2015 04:55:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17281 invoked by uid 89); 23 Apr 2015 04:55:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: paperclip.tbsaunde.org Received: from tbsaunde.org (HELO paperclip.tbsaunde.org) (66.228.47.254) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:55:16 +0000 Received: from tsaunders-iceball.corp.tor1.mozilla.com (unknown [23.233.68.71]) by paperclip.tbsaunde.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E9CDC07C; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:55:14 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:55:00 -0000 From: Trevor Saunders To: James Greenhalgh Cc: Richard Biener , "tbsaunde+gcc@tbsaunde.org" , GCC Patches , Richard Earnshaw , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Kyrylo Tkachov , nickc@redhat.com, Bin Cheng , bernds@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] remove some ifdef HAVE_cc0 Message-ID: <20150423045406.GA2949@tsaunders-iceball.corp.tor1.mozilla.com> References: <1429622658-9034-1-git-send-email-tbsaunde+gcc@tbsaunde.org> <1429622658-9034-3-git-send-email-tbsaunde+gcc@tbsaunde.org> <20150421152444.GD9945@tsaunders-iceball.corp.tor1.mozilla.com> <20150423032756.GA16004@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150423032756.GA16004@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01381.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:27:59AM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:24:44PM +0100, Trevor Saunders wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:14:01PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:24 PM, wrote: > > > > From: Trevor Saunders > > > > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > > > > > 2015-04-21 Trevor Saunders > > > > > > > > * conditions.h: Define macros even if HAVE_cc0 is undefined. > > > > * emit-rtl.c: Define functions even if HAVE_cc0 is undefined. > > > > * final.c: Likewise. > > > > * jump.c: Likewise. > > > > * recog.c: Likewise. > > > > * recog.h: Declare functions even when HAVE_cc0 is undefined. > > > > * sched-deps.c (sched_analyze_2): Always compile case for cc0. > > If I've counted right after the git bisect, this patch seems to break > the ARM buildi (arm-none-linux-gnueabihf): > > In file included from insn-output.c:40:0: > ..../gcc-src/gcc/conditions.h:112:0: error: "CC_STATUS_INIT" redefined [-Werror] > #define CC_STATUS_INIT \ > ^ > In file included from tm.h:35:0, > from insn-output.c:7: > ..../gcc-src/gcc/config/arm/arm.h:2159:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition > #define CC_STATUS_INIT \ > ^ > > I guess the conditions.h definition wants wrapping in #ifndef - though a > quick grep suggests that ARM is the only target defining CC_STATUS_INIT > so lets CC the ARM maintainers and see what their preference is... Well, that seems pretty weird, but it looks intentional arm does this see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg00437.html Of course I now see final.c also defines a fall back, so maybe the right thing to do is wrap the conditions.h definition in #if HAVE_cc0, or maybe the final.c definition can go away? Right now I'm to tired to make a good decision about that. sorry about the bustage! Trev > > Thanks, > James