From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-277815-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1651 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2010 14:19:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 1491 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2010 14:19:37 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-iw0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-iw0-f175.google.com) (209.85.214.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:19:32 +0000
Received: by iwn42 with SMTP id 42so7860622iwn.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 06:19:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.228.202 with SMTP id jf10mr4617953icb.455.1289312369582; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 06:19:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.176.193 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 06:19:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4CD9578B.6010208@gnu.org>
References: <AANLkTikSW7ZP5xJ-0y6LLSLaX7EtwdpQOHxt6vx7BOEp@mail.gmail.com>	<4CD9578B.6010208@gnu.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:19:00 -0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimrzKx2uCaOshM-dCnev_O2HvhoyR2e4in1Pdr+@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: Build system: Use AC_SYS_LARGEFILE
From: David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, 	GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg00897.txt.bz2

Paolo,

There is no problem in libcpp.  There is a warning about freopen
redefined in system.h, but I mistook that for another failure.

The main problem seems to be gengtype-lex.c, which is generated by
Flex.  Flex inserted

#include <stdio.h>

although gengtype-lex.l already includes

#include "bconfig.h"
#include "system.h"

in the correct order and system.h includes stdio.h.

I will try the gengtype-lex.l patch.

Thanks, David

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> wrote:
>> bconfig.h includes auto-host.h, which defines _LARGE_FILES.
>>
>> libcpp/directives.c also fails with similar errors, although it is not
>> obvious how headers are included in the wrong order
>>
>> I have no objection to enabling LARGE FILES support in GCC, but the
>> headers must be included in the correct order to allow bootstrap on
>> AIX.
>
> Is something like this enough?
>
> Index: libcpp/configure.ac
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> --- libcpp/configure.ac (revision 166028)
> +++ libcpp/configure.ac (working copy)
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ AC_PROG_INSTALL
> =A0AC_PROG_CC
> =A0AC_PROG_CXX
> =A0AC_PROG_RANLIB
> +AC_SYS_LARGEFILE
>
> =A0# See if we are building gcc with C++.
> =A0# Do this early so setting lang to C++ affects following tests
> Index: gcc/gengtype-lex.l
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> --- gcc/gengtype-lex.l =A0(revision 166028)
> +++ gcc/gengtype-lex.l =A0(working copy)
> @@ -23,6 +23,10 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.
>
> =A0%{
> =A0#include "bconfig.h"
> +
> +/* stdio.h has been included already by the flex skeleton, so
> + =A0 defining _LARGE_FILES here would break bootstrap on AIX. =A0*/
> +#undef _LARGE_FILES
> =A0#include "system.h"
>
> =A0#define malloc xmalloc
>