On 21 Jan 2015, at 06:53, Navdeep Parhar <n...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:36:16PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >> >> On 01/20/15 22:06, Adrian Chadd wrote: >>> On 20 January 2015 at 18:19, Alexey Dokuchaev <da...@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 07:50:23PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>>>> But the fix is rather ugly, isn't it? I would personally prefer to just >>>>> kill the older gcc but in the meantime updating it so that it behaves >>>>> like the updated gcc/clang would be better. IMHO. >>>> Seconded. Putting extra harness on the code to avoid bugs in the compiler >>>> that were actually fixed upsteam is totally bogus. >>> Right, but: >>> >>> * not all of us work on compilers; >>> * not all of us want to currently be working on compilers; >>> * some of us have to use the gcc that's in tree; >>> * .. and apparently updating that gcc to something > 4.2 is verboten. >> >> The external toolchain can't be that bad(?). >> >>> So if someone wants to help Navdeep by backporting those options, >> >> Hmm .. didn't I post a patch? >> >>> please do. I bet he'd love the help. >>> >> Ugh he doesn't and TBH, I don't care enough to look for >> consensus either. > > Let's please just move on from this discussion then. I am not familiar > with gcc internals so I can't vouch for this patch, and gcc is the > default compiler on platforms that I cannot test. Given that, it would > be reckless of me to push a gcc patch just to get it to play nice with > one single file in the tree. High risk, little reward (given that > -fms-extensions can be applied to just the file in question without > disturbing anything else in the tree).
Alternatively, just use the ${GCC_MS_EXTENSIONS} Makefile macro, which
I specifically introduced for this issue.
See e.g. sys/modules/ibcore/Makefile for an example.
-Dimitry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
