Hi Joseph,
Thanks for your suggestion, Those macros can be removed, we will send
the v4 version soon.
Are there any problems in this series of patches?
In other words, What conditions are required for LoongArch back-end merged?
By the way, We are preparing the LoongArch machine to send to Cfarm for testing.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 8:13 AM Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021, Chenghua Xu wrote:
>
> > + /* Macros dependent on the C dialect. */
> > + if (preprocessing_asm_p ())
> > + {
> > + builtin_define_std ("LANGUAGE_ASSEMBLY");
> > + builtin_define ("_LANGUAGE_ASSEMBLY");
> > + }
> > + else if (c_dialect_cxx ())
> > + {
> > + builtin_define ("_LANGUAGE_C_PLUS_PLUS");
> > + builtin_define ("__LANGUAGE_C_PLUS_PLUS");
> > + builtin_define ("__LANGUAGE_C_PLUS_PLUS__");
> > + }
> > + else
> > + {
> > + builtin_define_std ("LANGUAGE_C");
> > + builtin_define ("_LANGUAGE_C");
> > + }
> > + if (c_dialect_objc ())
> > + {
> > + builtin_define ("_LANGUAGE_OBJECTIVE_C");
> > + builtin_define ("__LANGUAGE_OBJECTIVE_C");
> > + /* Bizarre, but retained for backwards compatibility. */
> > + builtin_define_std ("LANGUAGE_C");
> > + builtin_define ("_LANGUAGE_C");
> > + }
> > +}
>
> I think all of this should be removed. It's a new architecture, there
> should be no need for any such macros for things that are not
> architecture-specific. In general, be careful to remove anything in the
> port that is actually about the peculiarities of what was once done for
> compatibility with existing software for an old architecture (MIPS?) that
> you modelled the port on and that is not considered best practice for a
> new architecture where you can make a fresh start.
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> jos...@codesourcery.com
