"Joseph S. Myers" <jos...@codesourcery.com> writes:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> > I'd thought about it, but refrained since HAVE_ENABLE_EXECUTE_STACK
>> > affects only three cpus. Currently, our documentation of libgcc
>> > configury and macros used is close to non-existant. That's probably for
>> > someone who has implemented this stuff.
>>
>> True, OTOH HAVE_ENABLE_EXECUTE_STACK is a target macro, and those are well
>> documented. Just say that it has to be defined if libgcc provides a
>> non-trivial implementation of __enable_execute_stack; it doesn't need to
>> delve
>> into how to hack libgcc.
>
> As I understand it, HAVE_ENABLE_EXECUTE_STACK is only used in code under
> gcc/config/. That is, it is not a target macro as usually understood but
> is logically private to a few back ends (and it would be a bug to
> introduce uses of it elsewhere, just like it was a bug to introduce uses
> of TARGET_64BIT outside gcc/config/ when that macro also is logically
> private).
That was my reasoning when originally not including the documenation in
my patch. So I'll just remove the HAVE_ENABLE_EXECUTE_STACK docs from
my revised patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00366.html
Are you ok with that and the __TRAMPOLINE_SIZE__ definition in
c-cppbuiltin.c (c_cpp_builtins)?
Thanks.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
