From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-169600-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8187 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2011 09:59:19 -0000
Received: (qmail 8171 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2011 09:59:17 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-gx0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-gx0-f175.google.com) (209.85.161.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:59:01 +0000
Received: by gxk3 with SMTP id 3so3917193gxk.20        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 02:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.236.21 with SMTP id j21mr625100ybh.193.1312192740765; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 02:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.219.17 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 02:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1108010949050.23880@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
References: <mcroc0u3ef5.fsf@coign.corp.google.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1108010008200.5578@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>	<CAFiYyc19_MoDj6rFnTeUezGf8eNVYFPpUyW8afM2jmMiFK-AUw@mail.gmail.com>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1108010949050.23880@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:59:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc2dfhO0UYyM3-cu2LnMAje50Wt6TB0pik+aAygGmc0LTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: Build stages 2 and 3 with C++
From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
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
X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> I think it's the only viable solution (use the full enum for a non-GCC s=
tage1
>> C++ compiler). =A0We could help it somewhat by at least placing
>> enum bitfields first/last in our bitfield groups.
>
> Are GCC and other compilers declaring that they support the GNU C and C++
> languages by defining __GNUC__ really the only compilers with this
> extension? =A0Feature tests for particular features are generally better
> than testing for whether the compiler in use is GCC. =A0(Using configure
> tests for things in ansidecl.h does require checking where in the gcc and
> src repositories those things are used, to make sure that the relevant
> configure tests are used everywhere necessary.)
>
> (Actually, C++03 appears to support enum bit-fields - it's only for C that
> they are a GNU extension - so can't we just enable them unconditionally
> when building as C++?)

Oh, sure - that's even better.

Richard.