Hi,
attached patch tells lpgcc to add two defines to the compiler it invokes: __LIBPAYLOAD__ and an architecture specific one (__i386__ or __powerpc__)
Signed-off-by: Patrick Georgi patrick.georgi@coresystems.de
Patrick Georgi wrote:
attached patch tells lpgcc to add two defines to the compiler it invokes: __LIBPAYLOAD__ and an architecture specific one (__i386__ or __powerpc__)
Signed-off-by: Patrick Georgi patrick.georgi@coresystems.de
Acked-by: Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se
On 6/22/10 5:16 PM, Patrick Georgi wrote:
Hi,
attached patch tells lpgcc to add two defines to the compiler it invokes: __LIBPAYLOAD__ and an architecture specific one (__i386__ or __powerpc__)
Signed-off-by: Patrick Georgi patrick.georgi@coresystems.de
Isn't __i386__ or __powerpc__ already set by the compiler?
Anyways,
Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de wrote:
On 6/22/10 5:16 PM, Patrick Georgi wrote:
Hi,
attached patch tells lpgcc to add two defines to the compiler it invokes: __LIBPAYLOAD__ and an architecture specific one (__i386__ or __powerpc__)
Yes it is. Or something is. You should use what the compiler sets IMHO.
ron
On 23.06.2010 14:52, ron minnich wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de wrote:
On 6/22/10 5:16 PM, Patrick Georgi wrote:
attached patch tells lpgcc to add two defines to the compiler it invokes: __LIBPAYLOAD__ and an architecture specific one (__i386__ or __powerpc__)
Isn't __i386__ or __powerpc__ already set by the compiler?
Yes it is. Or something is. You should use what the compiler sets IMHO.
I just checked and my gcc 4.2.1 always knows the following #defines on i386, even if you specify -nostdlib -nostdinc. #define __i386 1 #define __i386__ 1 #define i386 1
Patrick, which gcc version needs the additional __i386__ #define?
Regards, Carl-Daniel
Am 24.06.2010 16:26, schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
Patrick, which gcc version needs the additional __i386__ #define?
Hmm.. Tried it, none.. No idea why that didn't work last time.
Shall I revert it?
Patrick
On 24.06.2010 16:31, Patrick Georgi wrote:
Am 24.06.2010 16:26, schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
Patrick, which gcc version needs the additional __i386__ #define?
Hmm.. Tried it, none.. No idea why that didn't work last time.
Shall I revert it?
I think the rest of your patch is OK, so I'm against a complete revert. If you revert only the __i386__ hunk, you have my Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net Thanks.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Patrick Georgi -
Patrick Georgi -
Peter Stuge -
ron minnich -
Stefan Reinauer