On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> Arno, do you have objections to me applying the attached patch to the 4.5
>> branch? It makes it possible to build (and bootstrap) the Ada compiler on
>> the
>> 4.5 branch (oldest supported branch) with the 4.6 compiler, which is now the
>
> It is a bad idiom, given that we already had >= 10 __GNUC_MINOR__ and it
> is possible we'll have 4.10 as well.
> E.g. __GNUC_PREREQ macro in glibc shifts left major by 16, but even
> multiplying by 100 instead of 10 is better.
OK, we'll change the idiom on mainline.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 10:08:50AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Shouldn't this be * 100 and > 405 ? I mean, we already had GCC
> > 2.95, 2.96, 2.97 and 20 + 95 is > 45...
>
> This idiom is the one already used in tracebak.c for example. Would that
> really matter in practice?
It is a bad id
> Well, we don't guarantee such compatibility in general,
> so I'd like to make it clear that people shouldn't expect this combination
> to work, and if more complex patches are submitted, we'll likely NOT
> integrate them.
That's mainly for GCC developers; without this, it will be a pain to keep
> Shouldn't this be * 100 and > 405 ? I mean, we already had GCC
> 2.95, 2.96, 2.97 and 20 + 95 is > 45...
This idiom is the one already used in tracebak.c for example. Would that
really matter in practice?
--
Eric Botcazou
> Arno, do you have objections to me applying the attached patch to the 4.5
> branch? It makes it possible to build (and bootstrap) the Ada compiler on the
> 4.5 branch (oldest supported branch) with the 4.6 compiler, which is now the
> system compiler in recent Linux distributions.
Well, we don'
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 09:36:52AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> --- init.c(revision 186078)
> +++ init.c(working copy)
> @@ -86,6 +86,9 @@
>
> /* Global values computed by the binder. */
> int __gl_main_priority = -1;
> +#if (__GNUC__ * 10 + __GNUC_MINOR__ > 45)
Sho
