On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:53:58PM +0200, Toomas Soome wrote:
> > On 21. Jan 2020, at 02:13, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the patch.
> > Is it possible to have Toomas' Signed-off-by for this patch?
> > No need to resend the patch, just a reply to this email
> > saying it's OK is enough.
>
> OK by me:)
>
> >
> >> case MACH_SPARC32:
> >> predefine("__sparc__", 1, "1");
> >> predefine("__sparc", 1, "1");
> >> + predefine("sparc", 1, "1");
> >
> > I'm wondering if there is a real need for this one or if
> > it's just to reflect what GCC do? I'm a bit reluctant to
> > add it since it lies in the user's namespace. But I'm fine
> > to add it if there is a real use case for it (in which case
> > I'll just slightly change the patch to not predefine it if
> > one of the ISO dialect is selected (via --std=c99, ...)).
> >
>
>
> The problem is that gcc does define those symbols and the code is using them, hence smatch should behave the same:
OK, fine for me if the symbol is effectively used.
This patch and John's are applied and pushed with some adaptations
for a related pending branch I merged first.
Thanks,
-- Luc
