On 23/04/15 09:41, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 23/04/15 09:35, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Trevor Saunders <tbsau...@tbsaunde.org> >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:27:59AM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: >>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:24:44PM +0100, Trevor Saunders wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:14:01PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:24 PM, <tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org> wrote: >>>>>>> From: Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2015-04-21 Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * conditions.h: Define macros even if HAVE_cc0 is undefined. >>>>>>> * emit-rtl.c: Define functions even if HAVE_cc0 is undefined. >>>>>>> * final.c: Likewise. >>>>>>> * jump.c: Likewise. >>>>>>> * recog.c: Likewise. >>>>>>> * recog.h: Declare functions even when HAVE_cc0 is undefined. >>>>>>> * sched-deps.c (sched_analyze_2): Always compile case for cc0. >>>> If I've counted right after the git bisect, this patch seems to break >>>> the ARM buildi (arm-none-linux-gnueabihf): >>>> >>>> In file included from insn-output.c:40:0: >>>> ..../gcc-src/gcc/conditions.h:112:0: error: "CC_STATUS_INIT" redefined >>>> [-Werror] >>>> #define CC_STATUS_INIT \ > > This is a warning-to-error from -Werror, so this came out during bootstrap > rather than a cross-build, right? > > >>>> ^ >>>> In file included from tm.h:35:0, >>>> from insn-output.c:7: >>>> ..../gcc-src/gcc/config/arm/arm.h:2159:0: note: this is the location of >>>> the previous definition >>>> #define CC_STATUS_INIT \ >>>> ^ >>>> >>>> I guess the conditions.h definition wants wrapping in #ifndef - though a >>>> quick grep suggests that ARM is the only target defining CC_STATUS_INIT >>>> so lets CC the ARM maintainers and see what their preference is... >>> Well, that seems pretty weird, but it looks intentional arm does this >>> see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg00437.html >>> >>> Of course I now see final.c also defines a fall back, so maybe the right >>> thing to do is wrap the conditions.h definition in #if HAVE_cc0, or >>> maybe the final.c definition can go away? Right now I'm to tired to make >>> a good decision about that. >>> >>> sorry about the bustage! >> Looks like the best thing is to turn this into a target hook then? Or move >> the >> fallback/default to defaults.h > > Shall we revert this patch for now then to restore bootstrap? >
Isn't the most constructive temporary fix to just wrap the definition in conditions.h with #ifndef CC_STATUS_INIT? R. > Kyrill > >> >> Richard. >> >>> Trev >>> >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> James >
