From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23730 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2002 21:42:08 -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 23692 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2002 21:42:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.18.106) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 17 Dec 2002 21:42:06 -0000 Received: by nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 16202) id 868864DED7; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:41:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:06:00 -0000 From: Jan Hubicka To: Mark Mitchell Cc: Jan Hubicka , David Edelsohn , Zack Weinberg , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org" , Richard Henderson Subject: Re: basic-improvements merge status Message-ID: <20021217214156.GD7486@kam.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20021217084635.GQ3138@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <50420000.1040142058@warlock.codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50420000.1040142058@warlock.codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01071.txt.bz2 > > > --On Tuesday, December 17, 2002 09:46:35 AM +0100 Jan Hubicka > wrote: > > >OK, I will create updated patch with TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS macro and set > >it via linux.h file. Does this sound sane? > > It sounds OK to me, but it sounds like some people (for example, Gaby) > think we can do better via autoconf. It we can do it with autoconf, > that's better, I guess. What I don't like about autoconf is that we can't do that completely reliably - we can't do that when cross compiling or when there are multiple possible runtime, like in mingw. I will send the TARGET_* as soon as I finish testing and lets discuss futher improvement on top of that. OK? Honza > > Would you explore that alternative? If that doesn't look doable, then, > yes, TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS sounds good. > > -- > Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com > CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com