Tested x86_64-linux. I'd appreciate a second set of eyeballs on this
before I push it.
-- >8 --
This ensures that anything that depends on AC_REQUIRE is hoisted out of
the conditional block.
The always-false test x"long_double_math_on_this_cpu" = x"yes" condition
is not altered by this commit, o
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 at 16:59, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ <
libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> Tested x86_64-linux. I'd appreciate a second set of eyeballs on this
> before I push it.
>
Pushed to trunk now.
>
> -- >8 --
>
> This ensures that anything that depends on AC_REQUIRE is hoisted out of
> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 16:30:12 +0100
> From: Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 at 16:59, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ <
> libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > Tested x86_64-linux. I'd appreciate a second set of eyeballs on this
> > before I push it.
> >
>
> Pushed to trunk
On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 15:42, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 16:30:12 +0100
> > From: Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
>
> > On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 at 16:59, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ <
> > libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Tested x86_64-linux. I'd appreciate a second se
On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 15:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 15:42, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
>> > Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 16:30:12 +0100
>> > From: Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
>>
>> > On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 at 16:59, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ <
>> > libstd...@gcc.gnu.org
On Jun 07 2023, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Let's just revert it then. The manual says we should use AS_IF, but what we
> had previously was working well enough. I'll figure out what happened here
> later.
I think AS_IF is doing its job here: moving the expansion of
AC_REQUIRE'd macr
On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 16:19, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jun 07 2023, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > Let's just revert it then. The manual says we should use AS_IF, but what
> we
> > had previously was working well enough. I'll figure out what happened
> here
> > later.
>
> I think AS