RE: [pooma-dev] Pooma RFA: New gcc Configuration Files

[Julian C. Cummings]

Those configuration file variables such as $no_restrict
all have an implicit value of "0" or "false".  So when
the implicit value is the correct one, it is OK to just
delete that line, or you can leave it there just for
informational purposes.  In this case, I only realized
late in the game that if you define "restrict" to be
"__restrict__", gcc will accept it.  So that $no_restrict
used to be set to "1" in our gcc .conf files.

I'm happy with renaming the EGCS files to GCC.

-- Julian C.


-----Original Message-----
From: Allan Stokes [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 2:16 AM
To: Jeffrey Oldham; address@hidden
Subject: RE: [pooma-dev] Pooma RFA: New gcc Configuration Files



Jeffrey,

Looks like you reversed two files.

SGIN32gcc.conf contains SUN UltraSparc definition.
SUNgcc.conf contains SGIN32 definition.

I noticed that you removed 5 EGCS variances from each of these files.

Four of these were in the negative sense (missing capabilities of EGCS), but
the restrict block was in the positive sense (EGCS does have restrict).  So
I suspect you want to leave the $no_restrict = 0; for gcc as well.

I'll leave these for you to check these into the tree after reviewing my
comments.

Allan

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Oldham [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Wednesday 14 March 2001 22:27
To: address@hidden
Cc: Jeffrey Oldham
Subject: [pooma-dev] Pooma RFA: New gcc Configuration Files


Attached are proposed configuration files for compiling the Pooma
source code with the latest mainline gcc.  Basically, I copied the
*EGCS.conf files, substituting "gcc" for "ecgs" and removing a few
variables indicating that ECGS did not support some C++ features.

I have used the LINUXgcc.conf and the SGIN32gcc.conf files but not
SUNgcc.conf nor SGI64gcc.conf.

Is it OK to place these files in the Pooma CVS tree?

(I will be away for the next four days so response time will lag.)

Thanks,
Jeffrey D. Oldham
address@hidden