From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4942A385481B for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:05:58 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 4942A385481B Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-315-Iju1Cj8yOvmR9oYhWiyQnQ-1; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 14:05:54 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Iju1Cj8yOvmR9oYhWiyQnQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4910D1084D69; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:05:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-176.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.112.176]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD1B6EF41; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:05:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] c++: Predefine __STDCPP_THREADS__ in the compiler if thread model is not single To: John David Anglin , Jakub Jelinek , Jason Merrill , Jonathan Wakely Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <20201113172945.GH3788@tucnak> <8a232681-5adf-41ea-53fc-e8e82136b65b@bell.net> From: Jeff Law Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 12:05:52 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8a232681-5adf-41ea-53fc-e8e82136b65b@bell.net> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:05:59 -0000 On 11/13/20 12:03 PM, John David Anglin wrote: > On 2020-11-13 1:20 p.m., Jeff Law wrote: >> On 11/13/20 10:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> The following patch predefines __STDCPP_THREADS__ macro to 1 if c++11 or >>> later and thread model (e.g. printed by gcc -v) is not single. >>> There are two targets not handled by this patch, those that define >>> THREAD_MODEL_SPEC. In one case - QNX - it looks just like a mistake >>> to me, instead of setting thread_model=posix in config.gcc it uses >>> THREAD_MODEL_SPEC macro to set it unconditionally to posix. >>> The other is hpux10, which uses -threads option to decide if threads >>> are enabled or not, but that option isn't really passed to the compiler. >>> I think that is something that really should be solved in config/pa/ >>> instead, e.g. in the config/xxx/xxx-c.c targets usually set their own >>> predefined macros and it could handle this, and either pass the option >>> also to the compiler, or say predefine __STDCPP_THREADS__ if _DCE_THREADS >>> macro is defined already (or -D_DCE_THREADS found on the command line), >>> or whatever else. >>> >>> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? >>> >>> 2020-11-13 Jakub Jelinek >>> >>> * c-cppbuiltin.c: Include configargs.h. >>> (c_cpp_builtins): For C++11 and later if THREAD_MODEL_SPEC is not >>> defined, predefine __STDCPP_THREADS__ to 1 unless thread_model is >>> "single". >> OK.  Note that hpux10 should be considered long dead.   I wouldn't let >> that get in the way of anything.  One could argue we should remove >> hpux10 and earlier, leaving just hpux11. > In principle, I agree.  But there are some intereactions in the header defines and I have limited > time at the moment. ACK.  I don't think removing the old hpux stuff is a high priority.   My primary point was that I think hpux10 is dead and we shouldn't let it get in the way of making progress on platforms that are still viable. jeff