Hi,
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Alexander Ivchenko <aivch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> That was my original letter:
>>Hi,
>>
>>Could you please take a look at the attached fixinclude patch
>>that addresses the problem:
>>
>>" We have test fail for gcc.dg/cpp/trad/include.c on Android. The
>>reason for that is that
>>-ftraditional-cpp is not expected to work on Android due to variadic
>>macro (like #define __builtin_warning(x, y...))
>>in standard headers and traditional preprocessor cannot handle them."
>>
>>is it ok for trunk?
>>
>>thanks,
>>Alexander
>
> So I did ask whether it is ok or not. And then I got:
>
>> Be sure to ask, Ok? in your patch submittals.
>>
>> Ok.
Oops. Wrong word. I said, "you didn't ask" and meant to say
"you didn't get approval". I didn't see the original request because
there was no hint about "fixincludes" in the subject and I was not
on the to/cc line. So you asked, just not effectively enough for
me to see it and you did _not_ get approval.
Still:
>> Also, I prefer that the hacks get inserted
>> alphabetically. So, actually, there are a few small complaints.
>> The patch looks pretty reasonable, but I think someone else
>> should verify the obsolescence. I also think it should be renamed to
>> something like "obsolete_builtin_warning" because the current
>> name gives no clue about what it really is.
>>
>> /*
>> * Old Linux kernel's <compiler.h> header breaks Traditional CPP
>> */
>> fix = {
>> hackname = complier_h_tradcpp;
>> files = linux/compiler.h;
>>
>> select = "#define __builtin_warning\\(x, y\\.\\.\\.\\) \\(1\\)";
>> c_fix = format;
>> c_fix_arg = "/* __builtin_warning(x, y...) is obsolete */";
>>
>> test_text = "#define __builtin_warning(x, y...) (1)";
>> };
Please be kind enough to belatedly finish up and we'll (I'll) reapply it.
