On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 11/13/14 15:59, Mike Stump wrote: >>> >>> The problem, since this is a hook now, one can’t just test ifdef >>> FUNCTION_PROLOGUE. >> Right, but we can test the existence of the expander via the HAVE_xxx >> interface. > > Which ones, HAVE_prologue?
Ah, ok, I see now given the patch posted what was meant, yeah, that’s fine.
