On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:36:31AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >>>> On May 26, 2014, at 2:22 AM, FX <fxcoud...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> This causes GCC bootstrap to fail on Darwin systems (whose system >>>> > compiler is clang-based). Since PR 61146 was resolved as INVALID >>>> > (but I’m not sure it’s the right call, see below), I’ve filed a >>>> > separate report for the bootstrap issue >>>> > (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315). >>>> > >>>> > Since my PR has been closed twice by Andrew Pinski (“it’s clang’s >>>> > fault, bouh ouh”), I’d ask the maintainers to step in. Can we >>>> > please provide a GCC that works for the default darwin setup? Or at >>>> > least drop darwin as secondary target and document the failure? >>>> >>>> The best coarse of action, post a patch, have it reviewed and put in. >>>> Current action, a patch has been posted, the review is outstanding, I’d >>>> like to see it put in; though, I am curious why the casts were there in >>>> the first place. >>> >>> Note, haven't added them there, but from what I can test, the casts there >>> can serve as a compile time check that the right type is used, e.g. >>> unsigned long i; >>> >>> void >>> foo (void) >>> { >>> asm volatile ("# %0 %1" : "=r" ((unsigned long long) i) : "0" >>> ((unsigned long long) 0)); >>> } >> >> Ah, interesting. A not-so-hineous extension then. > > In that case, how about just protecting the include with: > > #if GCC_VERSION >= 4300 && (W_TYPE_SIZE == 32 || defined (__SIZEOF_INT128__)) > > rather than: > > #if GCC_VERSION >= 3000 && (W_TYPE_SIZE == 32 || defined (__SIZEOF_INT128__)) > > so that clang will fail the version check? At the end of the day we > only really care what happens during stage 2 and 3. Cross-compilers > built with recentish gccs will still benefit.
Works for me (thus, pre-approved with a comment explaining the version choice). Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > Richard
