On Monday 22 March 2010 07:18:52 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > So if a C compiler auto-defines something as "arm", or "i386", or > > > "microblaze", then it is NOT standard-conforming - bare with me if I > > > simply call this broken. > > > > that may be, but if that is what the gcc maintainer has decided, then > > complaining about it wont fix code like u-boot. after all, u-boot hasnt > > told > > Complaining about it might help to accelerate fixes which are already > in the works. GCC documentation reads: > > We are slowly phasing out all predefined macros which are > outside the reserved namespace. You should never use them in > new programs, and we encourage you to correct older code to > use the parallel macros whenever you find it. > > Complaining might make the "slowwly" a little faster. Not complaining > certainly does not help at all.
perhaps, but it doesnt make projects compile any better, and i'd be suspicious of how long it's actually going to take for that to become a reality. gcc has behaved this way for years, and i dont see any sign of it changing (it hasnt even started issuing warnings). > > gcc that it wants strict preprocessor behavior (i.e. using something like > > - ansi). if it did, then gcc wouldnt have output any non-prefixed > > defines. > > Maybe we should do that? looks like we already do, and you added it for precisely this reason (Aug 2009). i guess the OP is using an older version of u-boot which is why it's still a problem for him ? kind of makes this whole thread pointless noise ... sorry about that -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
