[Glibc-bsd-hackers] Re: [PATCH] GNU/k*BSD support (with ChangeLog) for gcc

[Robert Millan]

Hi Jim,

On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 06:27:22PM -0700, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> >     * libtool.m4: Add kfreebsd*-gnu and knetbsd*-gnu.
> >     * ltconfig: Likewise.
> >     * ltcf-c.sh: Likewise.
> >     * ltcf-cxx.sh: Likewise.
> >     * ltcf-gcj.sh: Likewise.
> 
> These files are from the upstream package libtool.  Our rules say that 
> the patches have to be submitted to and accepted by the libtool 
> maintainers first.  Once that is done, they can be merged into the gcc 
> tree without further approval.

My patches for libtool are already integrated and present in release 1.5.2.

Note: I asked the GCC maintainers for a libtool update some time ago, and in
response I was told that doing this would open a big can of worms because of
autotools stuff (still sticking with autoconf 2.13).

Still want me to remove that part of the patch?

> >diff -Nur gcc.old/gcc/config/i386/linux.h gcc/gcc/config/i386/linux.h
> >--- gcc.old/gcc/config/i386/linux.h  2003-11-29 04:08:10.000000000 +0100
> >+++ gcc/gcc/config/i386/linux.h      2004-03-22 20:45:45.000000000 +0100
> >+#undef  SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS       /* i386.h bogusly defines it.  */
> 
> The definition in i386.h isn't bogus.  It has to be there. 
> SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS is an optional macro.  An OS port defines it only 
> if it needs it.  If an OS port doesn't need it, then we use the default 
> definition in i386.h.

I copy-pasted this line from i386/freebsd.h. Want me to remove the comment
in i386/linux.h part of my patch?

> This seems unnecessarily wordy.  Couldn't you just have something like
> #define REG_NAME(reg) reg
> 
> and then in the k*bsd-gnu files this becomes something like
> #define REG_NAME (reg) sc_ ## reg
> This might have to be written differently, but there should be some way 
> to use token pasting here.

Done.

> >diff -Nur gcc.old/gcc/config/kfreebsd-gnu.h gcc/gcc/config/kfreebsd-gnu.h
> >--- gcc.old/gcc/config/kfreebsd-gnu.h        1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 
> >+0100
> >+++ gcc/gcc/config/kfreebsd-gnu.h    2004-03-22 20:46:33.000000000 +0100
> 
> >+#define LINK_EMULATION "elf_i386_fbsd"
> 
> This can't be right.  This is a target file that should apply to 
> kfreebsd-gnu for all architectures, but this is an obvious i386 
> dependence.  Hence it should be in a config/i386/kfreebsd-gnu.h file. 
> Also, it is overriding a macro that only exists in config/i386/linux.h, 
> and hence it makes no sense to put it in a target independent config 
> file.  Same this for DYNAMIC_LINKER which is i386 specific macro.

Fixed. I reviewed all my patch for instances of the same error.

> >diff -Nur gcc.old/gcc/config.gcc gcc/gcc/config.gcc
> >--- gcc.old/gcc/config.gcc   2004-03-14 18:24:36.000000000 +0100
> >+++ gcc/gcc/config.gcc       2004-03-22 20:32:27.000000000 +0100
> 
> >-    tm_file="${tm_file} i386/unix.h i386/att.h dbxelf.h elfos.h svr4.h 
> >linux.h i386/linux.h"
> >+    tm_file="${tm_file} i386/unix.h i386/att.h dbxelf.h elfos.h svr4.h"
> >+    case ${target} in
> >+    i[34567]86-*-knetbsd*-gnu) tm_file="${tm_file} knetbsd-gnu.h" ;;
> >+    i[34567]86-*-kfreebsd*-gnu) tm_file="${tm_file} kfreebsd-gnu.h" ;;
> >+    esac
> >+    tm_file="${tm_file} linux.h i386/linux.h"
> 
> I think you made the wrong choice here.  kfreebsd-gnu.h and 
> knetbsd-gnu.h should come after linux.h instead of before it, since you 
> are trying to override macros defined in the linux.h files.

Done.

> This does mean a few extra #undef need to be added to the kfreebsd-gnu.h 
> and knetbsd-gnu.h files, but that just helps make it obvious that we are 
> overriding linux defaults.

Done too.

-- 
Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion)