From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11115 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2002 22:44:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11076 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2002 22:44:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monkey.daikokuya.co.uk) (213.152.55.49) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Dec 2002 22:44:50 -0000 Received: from neil by monkey.daikokuya.co.uk with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18O3e0-00008r-00; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 22:23:24 +0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:47:00 -0000 From: Neil Booth To: Jan Hubicka Cc: David Edelsohn , Zack Weinberg , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: basic-improvements merge status Message-ID: <20021216222324.GA511@daikokuya.co.uk> References: <87bs3l3ab5.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <200212162212.RAA27306@makai.watson.ibm.com> <20021216221828.GB3138@kam.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021216221828.GB3138@kam.mff.cuni.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00952.txt.bz2 Jan Hubicka wrote:- > > > > Yes, it appears to be due to the builtins.def changes by Jan which > > assumes that all of those functions natively are available on every > > target. One cannot make that assumption. Testing for the existence of > > those functions on the target is not easy. > > I noticed that already and there is patch waiting for that. So hope it > will get reviewed soon. > I am not quite sure how to deal with this (whether we can autoconfigure > on whether runtime does have them or not). At the moment I do the > transformation only when -std=c99 or gnu99 is specified when the > transformation is valid as the standard requires these functions. But those switches are statements about what features the compiler should accept, and compiler semantics. They say nothing about the library conformance of the target to C99, IMO. Neil.