On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 09:00:03AM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote: > 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.
Ah, a rose with another name. I'm happy to use this but it's not clear why there is a GCC in the macro's name when clang deals with -fms-extensions just as well. (It's not even clear why the longer ${GCC_MS_EXTENSIONS} should be preferred to -fms-extentions. Isn't this like #define ONE 1 ?) In any case I'm perfectly fine with any change that doesn't involve a commit from me to gcc. Regards, Navdeep > > See e.g. sys/modules/ibcore/Makefile for an example. > > -Dimitry > _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"