* Killing old abi remnants
@ 2001-07-18 7:46 Nathan Sidwell
2001-07-18 8:06 ` Joseph S. Myers
2001-07-18 9:13 ` Mark Mitchell
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nathan Sidwell @ 2001-07-18 7:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc; +Cc: mark, jason
Hi,
We have old & new abi code in the compiler. This is selected via the
following #defines
#define vbase_offsets_in_vtable_p() (1)
#define vcall_offsets_in_vtable_p() (1)
#define vptrs_present_everywhere_p() (1)
#define all_overridden_vfuns_in_vtables_p() (1)
#define merge_primary_and_secondary_vtables_p() (1)
will a patch which removes all old abi remnants be acceptable?
As time progresses those old abi parts are going to suffer bitrot.
and what about flag_honor_std?
nathan
--
Dr Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
'But that's a lie.' - 'Yes it is. What's your point?'
nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Killing old abi remnants
2001-07-18 7:46 Killing old abi remnants Nathan Sidwell
@ 2001-07-18 8:06 ` Joseph S. Myers
2001-07-18 9:13 ` Mark Mitchell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2001-07-18 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nathan Sidwell; +Cc: gcc
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> will a patch which removes all old abi remnants be acceptable?
> As time progresses those old abi parts are going to suffer bitrot.
If you get rid of old ABI remnants, there's the -fno-new-abi support in
lang-specs.h to remove as well.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Killing old abi remnants
2001-07-18 7:46 Killing old abi remnants Nathan Sidwell
2001-07-18 8:06 ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2001-07-18 9:13 ` Mark Mitchell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2001-07-18 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nathan Sidwell, gcc; +Cc: jason
--On Wednesday, July 18, 2001 03:46:34 PM +0100 Nathan Sidwell
<nathan@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> We have old & new abi code in the compiler. This is selected via the
> following #defines
> #define vbase_offsets_in_vtable_p() (1)
> #define vcall_offsets_in_vtable_p() (1)
> #define vptrs_present_everywhere_p() (1)
> #define all_overridden_vfuns_in_vtables_p() (1)
> #define merge_primary_and_secondary_vtables_p() (1)
>
> will a patch which removes all old abi remnants be acceptable?
Yes. I meant to remove this stuff, but didn't get around to it.
> As time progresses those old abi parts are going to suffer bitrot.
>
> and what about flag_honor_std?
I don't know. In practice, very little will work with -fno-honor-std,
because the compiler assumes that pieces of the support library are
probably in `std', but I'd probably keep the flag, for now.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-07-18 9:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-07-18 7:46 Killing old abi remnants Nathan Sidwell
2001-07-18 8:06 ` Joseph S. Myers
2001-07-18 9:13 ` Mark Mitchell
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).