On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Richard Earnshaw <rearn...@arm.com> wrote: > On 13/03/12 10:05, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Richard Guenther >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Richard Guenther wrote: >>>>>>> 2012-01-18 Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * gthr.h (__GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION): Adjust specification. >>>>>>> * gthr-posix.h (__GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION): Define. >>>>>>> (__gthread_mutex_init_function): New function. >>>>>>> * gthr-single.h (__GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION): Define. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PR gcov/49484 >>>>>>> * libgcov.c: Include gthr.h. >>>>>>> (__gcov_flush_mx): New global variable. >>>>>>> (init_mx, init_mx_once): New functions. >>>>>>> (__gcov_flush): Protect self with a mutex. >>>>>>> (__gcov_fork): Re-initialize mutex after forking. >>>>>>> * unwind-dw2-fde.c: Change condition under which to use >>>>>>> __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION. >>>> >>>> Richi, I'm afraid this caused the following on i386-unknown-freebsd10? >>>> >>>> /scratch2/tmp/gerald/gcc-HEAD/libgcc/libgcov.c:710:54: error: 'NULL' >>>> undeclared here (not in a function) >>>> gmake[3]: *** [_gcov.o] Error 1 >>>> gmake[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... >>>> gmake[3]: Leaving directory >>>> `/scratch2/tmp/gerald/OBJ-0312-1454/i386-unknown-freebsd10.0/libgcc' >>>> gmake[2]: *** [all-stage1-target-libgcc] Error 2 >>> >>> This is >>> >>> #ifdef __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT >>> ATTRIBUTE_HIDDEN __gthread_mutex_t __gcov_flush_mx = __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT; >>> >>> thus if __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT uses NULL and gthr.h does not include >>> everything to make that initializer valid it is a freebsd header bug, unless >>> it is >>> >>> #if defined(inhibit_libc) >>> #define IN_LIBGCOV (-1) >>> #else >>> #undef NULL /* Avoid errors if stdio.h and our stddef.h mismatch. */ >>> #include <stdio.h> >>> >>> wtf? This is a target library, why is stdio.h not properly included >>> by tsystem.h? >>> It is. Anyone remembers? >> >> Goes back to rev. 5880 by rms, at which time tsystem.h did not exist. >> >> I'm going to remove those two lines, bootstrap & test it and commit as >> obvious. >> > > Please also check this on a bare-metal build.
Bare-metal should not be affected as that defines inhibit_libc(?). What is an example for a bare-metal target triplet? Richard. > R. > >> Richard. >> >>> Can you verify that theory, thus remove that #undef and the #include? >>> >>> Richard. >>> >>>> Gerald >> > >
