On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 08:54:34PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote: > On 03/02/2019 20:39, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 03:38:24PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote: > >> I had meant to mention this some time ago when previous changes > >> also "removed redundant defs" from the 'specs' in cgcc. > >> > >> It is possible to specify the '-target=<spec>' to use on the cgcc > >> command-line, presumably to allow some 'cross-compilation' ability. > >> How effective this would be I don't really know. I have never used > >> this facility, but it was presumably added for a reason. (Actually, > >> the commits that add the 'specs' don't provide any motivation in > >> their commit messages! see eg. commits 14db8c95, and cf2bde63). > >> > >> So, this may be going in the wrong direction. > > > > Yes, true. I admit that I've also never used this facility but there > > is a number of things that can't possibly work correctly (For example, > > if build on x86-64, __x86_64__ will always be defined, independently > > of the target and this since a long time already). More recently, > > predefines for INT32_TYPE & friends will be wrong too). > > > > To make cross-compiling/'-target=<...>' work in cgcc, sparse needs to > > have the same facility itself (and now, thanks to what you and me have > > put in place for INT32_TYPE, much of what is needed is there but it's > > not in my short-term priorities to add support for this). > > Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised that quite a few things no longer > work correctly as it stands, but my thought was not to make it > any worse. ;-) > > Having said that, nobody seems to be complaining, so ... I will > leave the decision to you! :-D I prefer to have all these macros defined once and avoid subtle breakages because some are defined contradictorily. Best regards, -- Luc
