On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 08:37:19PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > 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.
dce would be my guess. I guess going back to #if ing the bits that reference it, and then incrementally removing the #ifs starting with the ones defining the functions used in the structs, but given you seem to be against patches that only change ifdef to #if you might not likethat :( > > > >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. other than reading this now I'm not sure what the context would be, but either way personally I really don't mind reading that, and think its simpler to reason about the correctness of one thing at a time. Trev > > > Bernd
