From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Philippe De Muyter" To: law@cygnus.com Cc: gcc2@cygnus.com, egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: dwarf2out.c/ASM_OUTPUT_ASCII,ASM_OUTPUT_DWARF_STRING Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 06:46:00 -0000 Message-id: <199712011446.PAA02035@mail.macqel.be> References: <10079.880985697@hurl.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1997-12/msg00018.html > > PS : dwarf2out.c in egcs and testgcc are different for no reason : > > macro name, assert instead of if () abort(),... > No, it's for a good reason. > > Using "assert.h" like the old dwarfout/dwarf2out code is extremely bad. > > Consider what happens on systems which have gcc already installed, but > no __eprintf in their existing libgcc.a -- they fail to build because > the dwarf code picks up gcc's assert.h, which references __eprintf, > which doesn't exist in libgcc.a. Sorry, my wording was not clear enough. I only meant that I do not see anything 'experimental' in the differences between the egcs and testgcc versions of dwarf2out.c, and that it would thus be better if they were identical. Can one of the maintainer for gcc/dwarf2out.c update the testgcc version to be identiacl to the egcs version ?