From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-59614-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 28499 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2002 11:03:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 28169 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2002 11:02:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Sep 2002 11:02:05 -0000
Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id MAA17328; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:02:02 +0100 (BST)
Received: from unknown(172.16.202.26) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5)
	id xma016846; Wed, 4 Sep 02 12:01:41 +0100
Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost)
	by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g84B1eL17964;
	Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:01:41 +0100
Message-Id: <200209041101.g84B1eL17964@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
To: Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.co.uk>
cc: Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU>, Mike Laman <mlaman@cox.net>,
        GCC <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Organization: ARM Ltd.
X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd)
X-Fax: +44 1223 400410
X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ.
Subject: Re: __main 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Sep 2002 22:21:06 BST."
             <20020903212105.GB31696@daikokuya.co.uk> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 04:03:00 -0000
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@cambridge.arm.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00124.txt.bz2

> Fergus Henderson wrote:-
>=20
> > On 02-Sep-2002, Mike Laman <mlaman@cox.net> wrote:
> > > I'm creating the port (working on my third month on this project).
> >=20
> > In that case, why don't you define NAME__MAIN and SYMBOL__MAIN
> > in your target header files?
> >=20
> > ("set NAME__MAIN to give a quoted symbol and SYMBOL__MAIN to
> > give the same symbol without quotes for an alternative entry point.
> > You must define both, or neither.")
>=20
> Why not just define one in terms of the other?  I could never
> figure that out.

Oh probably because when I added that 10+ years ago there was some reason=20
why we couldn't rely on being able to generate a string from a symbol;=20
that is, why one of

#define STRINGIFY(X) #X

and

#define STRINGIFY(X) "X"

was failing, though you don't really expect me to remember that now do you?

R.

PS I've always condidered the K+R form a truly gross hack; there certainly=
=20
was nothing in K+R1 that suggested this had to work.