From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23525 invoked by alias); 2 May 2014 20:20:47 -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 23500 invoked by uid 89); 2 May 2014 20:20:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 3 recipients X-HELO: shepard.synsport.net Received: from mail.synsport.com (HELO shepard.synsport.net) (208.69.230.148) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 02 May 2014 20:20:45 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.20] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF3C6435AC; Fri, 2 May 2014 15:20:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5363FDF3.4070601@marino.st> Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 20:20:00 -0000 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joseph S. Myers" CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jonathan Wakely , Gerald Pfeifer , manu@gcc.gnu.org, "Eric Botcazou (gnu.org)" Subject: Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly References: <5352D100.9040108@marino.st> <5362DC9B.8090709@marino.st> <5363E0F4.4060900@marino.st> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00124.txt.bz2 On 5/2/2014 22:15, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote: > >> 1) I don't know which type definitions are missing (iow, the important >> ones from sys/type.h that are required to build gcc) > > The default presumption should be: > > * from GCC provides what it needs to provide; nothing extra is > needed and such a #include should not be needed at all. > > * Special measures to avoid duplicate typedefs (where some other header > also defines one of the typedefs defined in ) aren't in fact > needed, because GCC allows duplicate typedefs in system headers (even > outside C11 mode - in C11 mode it's a standard feature). > > So try removing that #include. If that causes problems, investigate based > on the actual problems seen. Okay, will do. Thanks!