On 04/04/17 12:50, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 04/04/17 12:41, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
[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.
For RTEMS ABI changes are not a big deal. Its more important that we
don't carry GCC patches around and can use a particular FSF release
unmodified. I will add this change to the GCC 6.4 and 7.1 release
notes, if this is all right for Jakub.
v2 of the patch is here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg00138.html
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
