------- Additional Comments From corsepiu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21
10:04 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> commit was not there so I would assume this could clarify as obvious.
OK, thanks.
However, one thought:
In gcc < 3.4 CPP_OS_RTEMS_SPEC had been part of svr4.h.
What do you think about moving CPP_OS_RTEMS_SPEC into rs6000/rtems.h, i.e. about
a applying this patch to gcc-4.0:
Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rtems.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rtems.h,v
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -r1.20 rtems.h
--- gcc/config/rs6000/rtems.h 17 Oct 2004 18:09:44 -0000 1.20
+++ gcc/config/rs6000/rtems.h 21 Jan 2005 10:02:12 -0000
@@ -38,3 +38,20 @@
#undef CPP_OS_DEFAULT_SPEC
#define CPP_OS_DEFAULT_SPEC "%(cpp_os_rtems)"
+
+#define CPP_OS_RTEMS_SPEC "\
+%{!mcpu*: %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dmpc750} } }\
+%{mcpu=403: %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dppc403} } } \
+%{mcpu=505: %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dmpc505} } } \
+%{mcpu=601: %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dppc601} } } \
+%{mcpu=602: %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dppc602} } } \
+%{mcpu=603: %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dppc603} } } \
+%{mcpu=603e: %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dppc603e} } } \
+%{mcpu=604: %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dmpc604} } } \
+%{mcpu=750: %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dmpc750} } } \
+%{mcpu=821: %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dmpc821} } } \
+%{mcpu=860: %{!Dppc*: %{!Dmpc*: -Dmpc860} } }"
+
+#undef SUBSUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS
+#define SUBSUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS \
+ { "cpp_os_rtems", CPP_OS_RTEMS_SPEC }
It would avoid polluting other targets' spec with RTEMS details while it should
not make a difference for powerpc-rtems.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19548
