Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:36:31AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >>> On May 26, 2014, at 2:22 AM, FX <fxcoud...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> This causes GCC bootstrap to fail on Darwin systems (whose system >>> > compiler is clang-based). Since PR 61146 was resolved as INVALID >>> > (but I’m not sure it’s the right call, see below), I’ve filed a >>> > separate report for the bootstrap issue >>> > (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315). >>> > >>> > Since my PR has been closed twice by Andrew Pinski (“it’s clang’s >>> > fault, bouh ouh”), I’d ask the maintainers to step in. Can we >>> > please provide a GCC that works for the default darwin setup? Or at >>> > least drop darwin as secondary target and document the failure? >>> >>> The best coarse of action, post a patch, have it reviewed and put in. >>> Current action, a patch has been posted, the review is outstanding, I’d >>> like to see it put in; though, I am curious why the casts were there in >>> the first place. >> >> Note, haven't added them there, but from what I can test, the casts there >> can serve as a compile time check that the right type is used, e.g. >> unsigned long i; >> >> void >> foo (void) >> { >> asm volatile ("# %0 %1" : "=r" ((unsigned long long) i) : "0" >> ((unsigned long long) 0)); >> } > > Ah, interesting. A not-so-hineous extension then.
In that case, how about just protecting the include with: #if GCC_VERSION >= 4300 && (W_TYPE_SIZE == 32 || defined (__SIZEOF_INT128__)) rather than: #if GCC_VERSION >= 3000 && (W_TYPE_SIZE == 32 || defined (__SIZEOF_INT128__)) so that clang will fail the version check? At the end of the day we only really care what happens during stage 2 and 3. Cross-compilers built with recentish gccs will still benefit. Thanks, Richard
