public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
Cc: eliz@gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: MinGW compilation warnings in libiberty's xstrndup.c
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 23:22:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5c5a27d9-b52c-7a08-45bb-1db170d8dd25@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xn8tlsiimt.fsf@greed.delorie.com>

On 05/19/2017 11:31 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> Right, I meant, libiberty's configure, gcc's configure, binutils'
> configure, and gdb's configure, all need to agree on whether strnlen is
> a HAVE or a HAVE_DECL type symbol.  If they don't, the header can't
> provide "one" working solution.
> 

Ah, yeah.  AFAICS, all the declaration checks in libiberty.h are 
HAVE_DECL checks.  This suggests to me that this declaration guard 
should be HAVE_DECL too [1].

BTW, I once proposed a new libiberty.m4 file that all libiberty
clients would source so that these checks are all centralized.

Here:
 https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00580.html

And follow up here:
 https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg01712.html

Leading to (as, gold, ld, gdb and libiberty/ itself converted):
 https://github.com/palves/gdb/commits/palves/libiberty_m4

I never tried adjusting gcc, but even if it wouldn't
work there, it'd still be a net win.

Wonder what others think of that approach.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-19 22:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-08 15:37 Eli Zaretskii
2017-05-19 15:27 ` Pedro Alves
2017-05-19 15:47   ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-05-19 16:08     ` Pedro Alves
2017-05-19 22:28 ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-19 22:31   ` Pedro Alves
2017-05-19 22:56     ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-19 23:22       ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2017-05-20  1:25         ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-22 16:28           ` Pedro Alves
2017-05-26 21:49 ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-28 18:31   ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-05-31  6:17     ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-31  6:55       ` Eli Zaretskii

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5c5a27d9-b52c-7a08-45bb-1db170d8dd25@redhat.com \
    --to=palves@redhat.com \
    --cc=dj@redhat.com \
    --cc=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).