[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
