[dropping devel at rtems dot org as I don't want more bounces] On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 04/04/17 11:00, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >>> >>> > static bool >>> > arm_default_short_enums (void) >>> > { >>> >- return TARGET_AAPCS_BASED && arm_abi != ARM_ABI_AAPCS_LINUX; >>> >+ return ARM_DEFAULT_SHORT_ENUMS; >>> > } >>> > >>> > >>> >diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/rtems.h b/gcc/config/arm/rtems.h >>> >index 53cd987..b34bbe8 100644 >>> >--- a/gcc/config/arm/rtems.h >>> >+++ b/gcc/config/arm/rtems.h >>> >@@ -27,3 +27,5 @@ >>> > builtin_assert ("system=rtems"); \ >>> > TARGET_BPABI_CPP_BUILTINS(); \ >>> > } while (0) >>> >+ >>> >+#define ARM_DEFAULT_SHORT_ENUMS false >> >> It's a change in ABI for the RTEMS platform but it certainly needs a >> documentation update in the release notes . Also, is it necessary that >> you need this in for GCC-7 or can you wait for stage-1 since we are in >> regression fixes mode ? > > > For RTEMS, ABI changes are not really critical. I would like to get this > into GCC 6.4. For GCC 7 its not urgent. >
The usual policy is not to have ABI changes within sub-releases of a GCC release cycle. However if the RTEMs community is happy with it, I have no particular objections. I would however strongly suggest that if you are fixing it for GCC 6.4 to then fix it for GCC-7 *and* document it in the release notes. regards Ramana