From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: H.J. Lu To: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: A prototype patch for tree.h/tree.def/calls.c Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 19:00:07 -0000 Message-id: In-reply-to: 20598.872014642@hurl.cygnus.com X-SW-Source: 1997-08/0180.html > > In message you write: > > > > > > In message you write: > > > > I have some problem s with my emails for the past few days. I may > > > > have lost some. I only remember your comments on BUFSIZ being a macro > > , > > > > which turned out ok. What else? > > > Relatively minor stuff. > > > > > > For this pass #if 0 the prototypes for xmalloc and related funtions; > > > once the bulk of the prototypes are in, please submit a separate > > > patch to enable prototyping of xmalloc and related functions. > > > > On my machine, they are enabled. > Please disable them for the patch. It is disabled in all my patches. Please double check it. > > > That is exactly the problem with size_t. How can you be > > sure size_t is available on all systems when xmalloc () > > is used? many xmalloc () in gcc use unsigned. I think > > it makes some senses. > NO! You simply can't change from size_t to unsigned, that's > just plain wrong. Please check all xmalloc definitions in egcs. Many of them use unsigned. > > Seems to me the right way to do this is with autoconf. > I don't know any scheme which will work on all systems. > > > I have spent weeks on it. I am afraid I may make some > > stupid mistakes if I try to reformat it. After all, > > those prototypes are mainly for compiler. Please feel > > free to reformat it. Thanks. > Then they're not likely to go in anytime soon. I don't have the > time to spend reformatting all your changes. > > > Here is what I have in my i386.h: > > > > #define NEED_enum_rtx_code > > #include "rtl.def" > > #undef NEED_enum_rtx_code > > #define NEED_enum_machine_mode > > #include "machmode.def" > > #undef NEED_enum_machine_mode > I had a feeling you'd done something like this -- let's punt this > for now until we can come up with something better. > I have tried many different ways. That is the smallest, working scheme. Does anyone have a better one which doesn't involve massive changes? > > So, it seems to me you need to do 3 things: > > * #if0 the xmalloc and friends prototypes. It is not an issue to begin with. > * Don't mess with the enum rtx_code and enum tree_code stuff > right now. Why, my change is small and working. It is very trivial to back it out. When will the greatest one be found anyway? > * Do some minor formatting. I am talking about over 5,000 lines of code. I don't feel like to reformat it for something that no compilers even care. I think protoptype is for compilers, not for human. But, again, feel free to reformat it. > > We're not talking about a lot of work that you'd need to do to > get your patches installed immediately. > -- H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.ai.mit.edu) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: A prototype patch for tree.h/tree.def/calls.c Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 19:00:07 -0000 Message-ID: In-reply-to: A prototype patch for tree.h/tree.def/calls.c X-SW-Source: 1997-08/0181.html Message-ID: <19970819190007.O14jYkRCt72pW_OSvbqnnpsEFYPqFmxxh5NZ-g2XsDs@z> In message you write: > > Please disable them for the patch. > > It is disabled in all my patches. Please double check it. OK. Thank you. > > NO! You simply can't change from size_t to unsigned, that's > > just plain wrong. > > Please check all xmalloc definitions in egcs. Many of > them use unsigned. I'm not saying they don't. They are wrong and should be fixed, but we can fix them later, we don't have to fix them now. But regardless of what other parts of gcc are doing, using "unsigned" in the prototype for xmalloc is wrong and such a change will not be installed. Please punt xmalloc and friends. It can be revisited later. The point here is to make progress. That means punting issues which are tricky so that we can get the bulk of your changes installed. > > * Don't mess with the enum rtx_code and enum tree_code stuff > > right now. > > Why, my change is small and working. It is very trivial > to back it out. When will the greatest one be found anyway? I (and others) think that part of the patch is gross and disgusting. It will not be installed. > > > * Do some minor formatting. > > I am talking about over 5,000 lines of code. I don't feel like > to reformat it for something that no compilers even care. I think > protoptype is for compilers, not for human. But, again, feel free > to reformat it. Then your code will have to wait. Maybe you should have been in contact with others before you wrote 5000 lines of code. Just because egcs is being more open doesn't mean we're just going to take whatever patch you whip up and install it. You still have to write good patches. If you refuse to write good patches, then your patches will get installed when we can get around to fixing them -- and with the amount of other stuff going on, including a release in two weeks fixing your patches certainly isn't at the top of my todo list. All I can do is point out the things that need to be fixed, then hope you (or someone) will fix them and then we can install the patch. Jeff