On 04/04/2012 04:07 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Tristan Gingold writes:
>
>> > Would something like that be acceptable ?
>> > I have just checked that I can still build gcc with that patch. If you
>> > like this approach I will properly submit a patch.
> Thanks.
>
> You should also test tha
On Apr 4, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Tristan Gingold writes:
>
>> Would something like that be acceptable ?
>> I have just checked that I can still build gcc with that patch. If you like
>> this approach I will properly submit a patch.
>
> Thanks.
>
> You should also test t
Tristan Gingold writes:
> Would something like that be acceptable ?
> I have just checked that I can still build gcc with that patch. If you like
> this approach I will properly submit a patch.
Thanks.
You should also test that gdb continues to build with this patch.
I guess the question her
On Apr 4, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Tristan Gingold writes:
>
>> include/
>> 2012-04-04 Tristan Gingold
>>
>> * splay-tree.h: Use LLP64 definitions of libi_shostptr_t and
>> libi_hostptr_t for VMS with 64bit pointers.
>
> I was strongly opposed to adding a _WIN6
Tristan Gingold writes:
> include/
> 2012-04-04 Tristan Gingold
>
> * splay-tree.h: Use LLP64 definitions of libi_shostptr_t and
> libi_hostptr_t for VMS with 64bit pointers.
I was strongly opposed to adding a _WIN64 define here and this is just
making it worse.
Ian
> --- a/inc
On Apr 4, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 09:55 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> unfortunately VMS (when 64bit pointers are used - which is nice for gcc) is
>> also an LLP64 platform.
>> So I need to follow to Win64 way in splay-tree.h.
>
>
> Doesn't VMS gcc de
On 04/04/2012 09:55 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> unfortunately VMS (when 64bit pointers are used - which is nice for gcc) is
> also an LLP64 platform.
> So I need to follow to Win64 way in splay-tree.h.
Doesn't VMS gcc define __LP64__/__LLP64__? Then we could for example:
#if !(defin
