On 11/09/2015 08:29 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
as I said in 0/12 this did go through config-list.mk, and checking again
this does build on alpha-dec-vms.
The question I have is - why does it build on any other target? It's the
reference that's unconditional, not the definition. Do we have enough
DCE at -O0 to eliminate the reference? It's still incorrect IMO (and
should be fixed in the other patches as well.
I'd actually really rather review them, or really deal with them in any
way, the way they are. Smaller simpler patches that only deal with one
thing are much better. I think the most macros that appear on one line
are 2, so at most you could lower that to 1 change instead of 2, but who
really cares anyway?
Well, I do, because I get to see this stuff:
-#if 1 < (defined (DBX_DEBUGGING_INFO) + defined (SDB_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
+#if 1 < (defined (DBX_DEBUGGING_INFO) + (SDB_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
+ defined (DWARF2_DEBUGGING_INFO) + defined
(XCOFF_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
+ defined (VMS_DEBUGGING_INFO))
#if 1 < (defined (DBX_DEBUGGING_INFO) + (SDB_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
- + defined (DWARF2_DEBUGGING_INFO) + defined
(XCOFF_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
+ + defined (DWARF2_DEBUGGING_INFO) + (XCOFF_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
+ defined (VMS_DEBUGGING_INFO))
#if 1 < (defined (DBX_DEBUGGING_INFO) + (SDB_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
+ defined (DWARF2_DEBUGGING_INFO) + (XCOFF_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
- + defined (VMS_DEBUGGING_INFO))
+ + (VMS_DEBUGGING_INFO))
#if 1 < (defined (DBX_DEBUGGING_INFO) + (SDB_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
- + defined (DWARF2_DEBUGGING_INFO) + (XCOFF_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
+ + (DWARF2_DEBUGGING_INFO) + (XCOFF_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
+ (VMS_DEBUGGING_INFO))
-#if 1 < (defined (DBX_DEBUGGING_INFO) + (SDB_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
+#if 1 < ((DBX_DEBUGGING_INFO) + (SDB_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
+ (DWARF2_DEBUGGING_INFO) + (XCOFF_DEBUGGING_INFO) \
+ (VMS_DEBUGGING_INFO))
etc.
Bernd
