[4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

[4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

[Andreas Tobler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 460 bytes --]

Hi all,

this patch implements the c99-math fixes on a different way than done on 
main and (future) 4.3.1.

Tested on solaris11 
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg01590.html)

Ok for 4.2 iff the backport went in for 4.3.1?

Thanks,
Andreas

2008-02-27  Kaveh R. Ghazi  <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
	    Andreas Tobler  <a.tobler@schweiz.org>

	* inclhack.def (solaris_math_10): New.
	* tests/base/iso/math_c99.h: Update.
	* fixincl.x: Regenerate.

[-- Attachment #2: ff.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2694 bytes --]

Index: inclhack.def
===================================================================
--- inclhack.def	(revision 132531)
+++ inclhack.def	(working copy)
@@ -3089,7 +3089,37 @@
     "#undef	isunordered\n"
     "#define	isunordered(x, y)	((x) __builtin_isunordered(y))";
 };
+/*
+ * On Solaris 11, if you do isinf(NaN) you'll get a floating point
+ * exception. Provide an alternative using GCC's builtin macros.
+ */
 
+fix = {
+    hackname  = solaris_math_10;
+    select    = '@\(#\)math_c99.h' "[ \t]+1.[0-9]+[ \t]+[0-9/]+ SMI";
+    files     = iso/math_c99.h;
+    c_fix     = format;
+    c_fix_arg = "#define isinf(x)\t__extension__ ( {\t\t\t\t\\\n"
+		"\t\t\tconst __typeof(x) __x_i = (x);\t\t\t\\\n"
+		"\t\t\t__builtin_expect(sizeof(__x_i) == sizeof(float)\t\\\n"
+		"\t\t\t? isgreater(__builtin_fabsf(__x_i),__FLT_MAX__) \\\n"
+		"\t\t\t: sizeof(__x_i) == sizeof(long double)\t\t\\\n"
+		"\t\t\t? isgreater(__builtin_fabsl(__x_i),__LDBL_MAX__)\\\n"
+		"\t\t\t: isgreater(__builtin_fabs(__x_i),__DBL_MAX__), 0);\\\n"
+		"\t})";
+    c_fix_arg = "^#define[ \t]+isinf\\(x\\)[ \t]+__extension__\\([ \t]*\\\\\n"
+                "[ \t]*\\{[ \t]*__typeof\\(x\\)[ \t]*__x_i[ \t]*=[ \t]*\\(x\\);[ \t]*\\\\\n"
+                "[ \t]*__x_i[ \t]*==[ \t]*\\(__typeof\\(__x_i\\)\\)[ \t]*INFINITY[ \t]*\\|\\|[ \t]*\\\\\n"
+                "[ \t]*__x_i[ \t]*==[ \t]*\\(__typeof\\(__x_i\\)\\)[ \t]*\\(-INFINITY\\);[ \t]*\\}\\)";
+    test_text =
+    '#pragma ident	"@(#)math_c99.h	1.12	07/01/21 SMI"'"\n"
+    "#undef	isinf\n"
+    "#define	isinf(x)	__extension__( \\\\\n"
+    "			{ __typeof(x) __x_i = (x); \\\\\n"
+    "			__x_i == (__typeof(__x_i)) INFINITY || \\\\\n"
+    "			__x_i == (__typeof(__x_i)) (-INFINITY); })";
+};
+
 /*
  *  Sun Solaris 2.5.1, 2.6 defines PTHREAD_{MUTEX|COND}_INITIALIZER
  *  incorrectly, so we replace them with versions that correspond to
Index: tests/base/iso/math_c99.h
===================================================================
--- tests/base/iso/math_c99.h	(revision 132531)
+++ tests/base/iso/math_c99.h	(working copy)
@@ -117,3 +117,17 @@
 #undef	isunordered
 #define	isunordered(x, y)	__builtin_isunordered(x, y)
 #endif  /* SOLARIS_MATH_9_CHECK */
+
+
+#if defined( SOLARIS_MATH_10_CHECK )
+#pragma ident	"@(#)math_c99.h	1.12	07/01/21 SMI"
+#undef	isinf
+#define isinf(x)	__extension__ ( {				\
+			const __typeof(x) __x_i = (x);			\
+			__builtin_expect(sizeof(__x_i) == sizeof(float)	\
+			? isgreater(__builtin_fabsf(__x_i),__FLT_MAX__) \
+			: sizeof(__x_i) == sizeof(long double)		\
+			? isgreater(__builtin_fabsl(__x_i),__LDBL_MAX__)\
+			: isgreater(__builtin_fabs(__x_i),__DBL_MAX__), 0);\
+	})
+#endif  /* SOLARIS_MATH_10_CHECK */

Re: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

[Kaveh R. GHAZI]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Andreas Tobler wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> this patch implements the c99-math fixes on a different way than done on
> main and (future) 4.3.1.
>
> Tested on solaris11
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg01590.html)
>
> Ok for 4.2 iff the backport went in for 4.3.1?
>
> Thanks,
> Andreas
>
> 2008-02-27  Kaveh R. Ghazi  <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
> 	    Andreas Tobler  <a.tobler@schweiz.org>
>
> 	* inclhack.def (solaris_math_10): New.
> 	* tests/base/iso/math_c99.h: Update.
> 	* fixincl.x: Regenerate.
>

Hi Andreas - I believe this also applies to 4.1.  Bruce generally likes
fixincludes patches to be applied to all active branches.  See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01334.html

		Thanks,
		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu

Re: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

[Andreas Tobler]

Hi Kaveh,

Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:

>> 2008-02-27  Kaveh R. Ghazi  <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
>> 	    Andreas Tobler  <a.tobler@schweiz.org>
>>
>> 	* inclhack.def (solaris_math_10): New.
>> 	* tests/base/iso/math_c99.h: Update.
>> 	* fixincl.x: Regenerate.
>>
> 
> Hi Andreas - I believe this also applies to 4.1.  Bruce generally likes
> fixincludes patches to be applied to all active branches.  See:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01334.html
> 

I know, I just wanted to highlight that I have the patch already 
finished for 4.2. For 4.1 I need to co the branch and test.

Thanks,
Andreas

Re: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

[Richard Guenther]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Andreas Tobler <andreast-list@fgznet.ch> wrote:
> Hi Kaveh,
>
>
>  Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
>
>  >> 2008-02-27  Kaveh R. Ghazi  <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
>  >>          Andreas Tobler  <a.tobler@schweiz.org>
>  >>
>  >>      * inclhack.def (solaris_math_10): New.
>  >>      * tests/base/iso/math_c99.h: Update.
>  >>      * fixincl.x: Regenerate.
>  >>
>  >
>  > Hi Andreas - I believe this also applies to 4.1.  Bruce generally likes
>  > fixincludes patches to be applied to all active branches.  See:
>  > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01334.html
>  >
>
>  I know, I just wanted to highlight that I have the patch already
>  finished for 4.2. For 4.1 I need to co the branch and test.

The 4.1 branch is in deep maintainance mode and should receive only
serious wrong-code bug fixes and fixes for regressions on the branch itself.
It also won't get any more releases due to GPL transition issues.

Richard.

Re: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

[Kaveh R. GHAZI]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Andreas Tobler <andreast-list@fgznet.ch> wrote:
> > Hi Kaveh,
> >
> >
> >  Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> >
> >  >> 2008-02-27  Kaveh R. Ghazi  <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
> >  >>          Andreas Tobler  <a.tobler@schweiz.org>
> >  >>
> >  >>      * inclhack.def (solaris_math_10): New.
> >  >>      * tests/base/iso/math_c99.h: Update.
> >  >>      * fixincl.x: Regenerate.
> >  >>
> >  >
> >  > Hi Andreas - I believe this also applies to 4.1.  Bruce generally likes
> >  > fixincludes patches to be applied to all active branches.  See:
> >  > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01334.html
> >  >
> >
> >  I know, I just wanted to highlight that I have the patch already
> >  finished for 4.2. For 4.1 I need to co the branch and test.
>
> The 4.1 branch is in deep maintainance mode and should receive only
> serious wrong-code bug fixes and fixes for regressions on the branch itself.
> It also won't get any more releases due to GPL transition issues.
> Richard.

Richard,

I believe this bugfix qualifies for gcc-4.1.

It's a wrong code bug.  It's a regression (if you count that moving from
solaris10 to solaris11 you'll see a new bug).  The restriction
"regressions on the branch itself" is not followed *at all by anyone*.
Just look at the 4.1 ChangeLog, so please let's not apply that
qualification to just this one patch.

I agree it's a corner case, but whether it's "serious" to a user depends
on whether their code relies on the correct behavior of this feature.  So
IMHO we should balance the relative frequency of this case vs. the
invasiveness of the fix.

Regarding that, the patch is small & simple, done by fixincludes (i.e. not
a behavior change to cc1), it's limited to solaris11 in just one header
file on that OS.

And the fixincludes maintainer has expressed his policy regarding
backports is that "all active branches" should get all fixes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01334.html
We generally give some leeway to maintainers within their area of
expertise.

Weighing all this together, I'd like you to please reconsider.

		Thanks,
		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu

Re: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

[Richard Guenther]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>  > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Andreas Tobler <andreast-list@fgznet.ch> wrote:
>  > > Hi Kaveh,
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >  Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  >> 2008-02-27  Kaveh R. Ghazi  <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
>  > >  >>          Andreas Tobler  <a.tobler@schweiz.org>
>  > >  >>
>  > >  >>      * inclhack.def (solaris_math_10): New.
>  > >  >>      * tests/base/iso/math_c99.h: Update.
>  > >  >>      * fixincl.x: Regenerate.
>  > >  >>
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Hi Andreas - I believe this also applies to 4.1.  Bruce generally likes
>  > >  > fixincludes patches to be applied to all active branches.  See:
>  > >  > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01334.html
>  > >  >
>  > >
>  > >  I know, I just wanted to highlight that I have the patch already
>  > >  finished for 4.2. For 4.1 I need to co the branch and test.
>  >
>  > The 4.1 branch is in deep maintainance mode and should receive only
>  > serious wrong-code bug fixes and fixes for regressions on the branch itself.
>  > It also won't get any more releases due to GPL transition issues.
>  > Richard.
>
>  Richard,
>
>  I believe this bugfix qualifies for gcc-4.1.
>
>  It's a wrong code bug.  It's a regression (if you count that moving from
>  solaris10 to solaris11 you'll see a new bug).  The restriction
>  "regressions on the branch itself" is not followed *at all by anyone*.
>  Just look at the 4.1 ChangeLog, so please let's not apply that
>  qualification to just this one patch.
>
>  I agree it's a corner case, but whether it's "serious" to a user depends
>  on whether their code relies on the correct behavior of this feature.  So
>  IMHO we should balance the relative frequency of this case vs. the
>  invasiveness of the fix.
>
>  Regarding that, the patch is small & simple, done by fixincludes (i.e. not
>  a behavior change to cc1), it's limited to solaris11 in just one header
>  file on that OS.
>
>  And the fixincludes maintainer has expressed his policy regarding
>  backports is that "all active branches" should get all fixes.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01334.html
>  We generally give some leeway to maintainers within their area of
>  expertise.
>
>  Weighing all this together, I'd like you to please reconsider.

I am trying to set new "policies" here, in that with branch age there should
be a focus to fix regressions on the branch only, as after all for example
4.2 is available for other bugfixes.  The idea is that patches to an old branch
should have zero chance of causing regressions on that branch.

So I'm going to make that point more often if I notice such changes (I agree,
that there is no consistency here).

Richard.

Status of the 4.1 branch (was: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
> The 4.1 branch is in deep maintainance mode and should receive only 
> serious wrong-code bug fixes and fixes for regressions on the branch 
> itself. It also won't get any more releases due to GPL transition 
> issues.

Could you add a note to our main page regarding this, or shall we just
leave the latest status there where, after the work on the 4.3.0 release,
the 4.1-branch isn't actually present any longer?

For the time being I only committed the patch below which updates the
status of GCC 4.3 and GCC 4.4, but I'd volunteer to resurrect the 4.1
entry in a shorter version essentially stating what you wrote above.

Gerald

Index: index.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.651
diff -u -3 -p -r1.651 index.html
--- index.html	9 Mar 2008 20:33:18 -0000	1.651
+++ index.html	9 Mar 2008 20:52:07 -0000
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ annual report for 2008</a></dd>
   <a href="gcc-4.3/">GCC 4.3.0</a>
 </dt><dd>
   Status:
-  <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-03/msg00157.html">2008-03-03</a>
+  <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-03/msg00371.html">2008-03-06</a>
   (regression fixes and docs only).
   <br />
   <a
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ annual report for 2008</a></dd>
   GCC 4.4.0 (<a href="gcc-4.4/changes.html">changes</a>)
 </dt><dd>
   Status:
-  <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-02/msg00237.html">2008-02-14</a>
+  <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-03/msg00158.html">2008-03-03</a>
   (Stage 1).
   <br />
   <a

Re: Status of the 4.1 branch (was: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch)

[Richard Guenther]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
>  > The 4.1 branch is in deep maintainance mode and should receive only
>  > serious wrong-code bug fixes and fixes for regressions on the branch
>  > itself. It also won't get any more releases due to GPL transition
>  > issues.
>
>  Could you add a note to our main page regarding this, or shall we just
>  leave the latest status there where, after the work on the 4.3.0 release,
>  the 4.1-branch isn't actually present any longer?
>
>  For the time being I only committed the patch below which updates the
>  status of GCC 4.3 and GCC 4.4, but I'd volunteer to resurrect the 4.1
>  entry in a shorter version essentially stating what you wrote above.

I think keeping it removed is ok.

Richard.

Re: Status of the 4.1 branch (was: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch)

[Kaveh R. Ghazi]

From: "Gerald Pfeifer" <gerald@pfeifer.com>

> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> The 4.1 branch is in deep maintainance mode and should receive only
>> serious wrong-code bug fixes and fixes for regressions on the branch
>> itself. It also won't get any more releases due to GPL transition
>> issues.
>
> Could you add a note to our main page regarding this, or shall we just
> leave the latest status there where, after the work on the 4.3.0 release,
> the 4.1-branch isn't actually present any longer?

Is it time to close the 4.1 branch?  We have four active branches at the 
moment, which is probably too many.

        --Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi

Re: Status of the 4.1 branch

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> Is it time to close the 4.1 branch?  We have four active branches at
> the moment, which is probably too many.

The question is if anyone is using that branch.  If someone is, and
would keep maintaining the branch locally (or as a different branch
in the gcc.gnu.org SVN) I guess it's neutral.  If more than one party
is using it, it seems preferrably to keep this in the open.

I could stop doing weekly snapshots and only run one upon specific
request.

Again, I don't have a personal preference either way, so I'm looking
for input. :-)

Gerald

Re: Status of the 4.1 branch

[Richard Guenther]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
>  > Is it time to close the 4.1 branch?  We have four active branches at
>  > the moment, which is probably too many.
>
>  The question is if anyone is using that branch.  If someone is, and
>  would keep maintaining the branch locally (or as a different branch
>  in the gcc.gnu.org SVN) I guess it's neutral.  If more than one party
>  is using it, it seems preferrably to keep this in the open.
>
>  I could stop doing weekly snapshots and only run one upon specific
>  request.
>
>  Again, I don't have a personal preference either way, so I'm looking
>  for input. :-)

I think the question is more about how to handle bugzilla with respect
to 4.1.  If the conclusion is that we want to get rid of the 4.1 regression
markers and thus close remaining 4.1 only bugs as WONTFIX then
we should officially close the branch.  If people still want to publically
maintain it by for example backporting patches then they could do
so on a branch on top of the last rev of the 4.1 branch.

Richard.

Re: Status of the 4.1 branch

[Kaveh R. Ghazi]

From: "Richard Guenther" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>

> I think the question is more about how to handle bugzilla with respect
> to 4.1.  If the conclusion is that we want to get rid of the 4.1 
> regression
> markers and thus close remaining 4.1 only bugs as WONTFIX then
> we should officially close the branch.  If people still want to publically
> maintain it by for example backporting patches then they could do
> so on a branch on top of the last rev of the 4.1 branch.
> Richard.

Upthread you said the 4.1 branch "should receive only serious wrong-code bug 
fixes and fixes for regressions on the branch itself".  With the latter part 
I took it to mean 4.1 should not receive fixes for those regressions with 
respect to previous (4.0/3.x) gcc releases.  That severely limits bugs that 
can be fixed and perhaps by definition eliminates backporting patches since 
those bugs presumably did not occur between 4.1.0 and 4.1.x.  I don't think 
too many (if any) 4.1 regressions fall into this category.

The other thing you said was "it won't get any more releases due to GPL 
transition issues."  I don't recall whether RMS said we couldn't make 
another release of prior branches using GPLv2.  Is that true?  If not, maybe 
we cut one final release and close it.  (It's been over a year since 4.1.2).

        --Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi

Re: Status of the 4.1 branch

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> The other thing you said was "it won't get any more releases due to GPL 
> transition issues."  I don't recall whether RMS said we couldn't make 
> another release of prior branches using GPLv2.  Is that true?  If not, 
> maybe we cut one final release and close it.  (It's been over a year 
> since 4.1.2).

Yes, this is my understanding of what RMS told us.  No more releases
from GPLv2 branches.

Gerald

Re: Status of the 4.1 branch

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
>  > The other thing you said was "it won't get any more releases due to GPL
>  > transition issues."  I don't recall whether RMS said we couldn't make
>  > another release of prior branches using GPLv2.  Is that true?  If not,
>  > maybe we cut one final release and close it.  (It's been over a year
>  > since 4.1.2).
>
>  Yes, this is my understanding of what RMS told us.  No more releases
>  from GPLv2 branches.

I just read this message, before replying to the one on gcc@ list.
Well, I suspect the above strongly argues for just closing
the branch and marking the GCC-4.1.x only regressions as WONFTIX.

Re: Status of the 4.1 branch

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> Well, I suspect the above strongly argues for just closing
> the branch and marking the GCC-4.1.x only regressions as WONFTIX.

My preference would be to mark them FIXED and set the milestone to 
indicate the 4.2 or 4.3 version in which they were FIXED.

(Regressions still present in 4.2, 4.3 or 4.4 should have their summaries 
updated to remove any "4.1/" or "4.0/4.1/" when 4.1 branch is closed.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: Status of the 4.1 branch

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>  > Well, I suspect the above strongly argues for just closing
>  > the branch and marking the GCC-4.1.x only regressions as WONFTIX.
>
>  My preference would be to mark them FIXED and set the milestone to
>  indicate the 4.2 or 4.3 version in which they were FIXED.

OK.

Re: Status of the 4.1 branch

[Richard Guenther]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
<gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Joseph S. Myers
>  <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>  > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>  >
>  >  > Well, I suspect the above strongly argues for just closing
>  >  > the branch and marking the GCC-4.1.x only regressions as WONFTIX.
>  >
>  >  My preference would be to mark them FIXED and set the milestone to
>  >  indicate the 4.2 or 4.3 version in which they were FIXED.

Yes.  Also make sure to include 4.1.3 in the list of known-to-fail versions.

Richard.

Re: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

[Andreas Tobler]

Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Hi Kaveh,
> 
> Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> 
>>> 2008-02-27  Kaveh R. Ghazi  <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
>>>         Andreas Tobler  <a.tobler@schweiz.org>
>>>
>>>     * inclhack.def (solaris_math_10): New.
>>>     * tests/base/iso/math_c99.h: Update.
>>>     * fixincl.x: Regenerate.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Andreas - I believe this also applies to 4.1.  Bruce generally likes
>> fixincludes patches to be applied to all active branches.  See:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01334.html
>>
> 
> I know, I just wanted to highlight that I have the patch already 
> finished for 4.2. For 4.1 I need to co the branch and test.

For completeness the results:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg01878.html

Andreas

Re: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

[Mark Mitchell]

Andreas Tobler wrote:

> this patch implements the c99-math fixes on a different way than done on 
> main and (future) 4.3.1.
> 
> Tested on solaris11 
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg01590.html)
> 
> Ok for 4.2 iff the backport went in for 4.3.1?

OK.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

Re: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

[Andreas Tobler]

Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Andreas Tobler wrote:
> 
>> this patch implements the c99-math fixes on a different way than done 
>> on main and (future) 4.3.1.
>>
>> Tested on solaris11 
>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg01590.html)
>>
>> Ok for 4.2 iff the backport went in for 4.3.1?
> 
> OK.

Am I right, the 4.3.1 branch is open and the prerequisite patch went 
into 4.3.1? So I can now commit for 4.2.x

Safety question only.

Anderas

Re: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

[Kaveh R. Ghazi]

From: "Andreas Tobler" <andreast-list@fgznet.ch>

> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> Andreas Tobler wrote:
>> 
>>> this patch implements the c99-math fixes on a different way than done 
>>> on main and (future) 4.3.1.
>>>
>>> Tested on solaris11 
>>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg01590.html)
>>>
>>> Ok for 4.2 iff the backport went in for 4.3.1?
>> 
>> OK.
> 
> Am I right, the 4.3.1 branch is open and the prerequisite patch went 
> into 4.3.1? So I can now commit for 4.2.x
> Safety question only.
> Anderas

The 4.3 branch was reopened here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-03/msg00371.html

I checked in the prerequisite patch to 4.3.1 shortly afterwards:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-03/msg00217.html

        --Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi

Re: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

[Andreas Tobler]

Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:

>> Am I right, the 4.3.1 branch is open and the prerequisite patch went 
>> into 4.3.1? So I can now commit for 4.2.x
>> Safety question only.
>> Anderas
> 
> The 4.3 branch was reopened here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-03/msg00371.html
> 
> I checked in the prerequisite patch to 4.3.1 shortly afterwards:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-03/msg00217.html

Thx, I'll ci tomorrow if time permits, on 4.2.x.

Andreas

Re: [4.2 PATCH]: backport solaris11 c99-math fixincludes patch

[Andreas Tobler]

Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> 
>>> Am I right, the 4.3.1 branch is open and the prerequisite patch went 
>>> into 4.3.1? So I can now commit for 4.2.x
>>> Safety question only.
>>> Anderas
>>
>> The 4.3 branch was reopened here:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-03/msg00371.html
>>
>> I checked in the prerequisite patch to 4.3.1 shortly afterwards:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-03/msg00217.html
> 
> Thx, I'll ci tomorrow if time permits, on 4.2.x.

Done.
Thanks,
Andreas