Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/06/13/09:01:18
On 13 Jun 2001, at 15:39, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:
>
> > > Does that mean that -remap and -imacros don't work with "gcc -traditional"?
> > >
> > > If that is indeed so, I guess we have no other choice but to modify the
> > > stubs as you suggested originally. Tweaking specs for this is too gross,
> > > IMHO, and might also cause compatibility problems in the long run.
> >
> > I don't expect special problems from such modification of specs (I
> > simply copied condition from rule how to choose which of cpp0
> > or tradcpp0 to use).
> >
> > gcc -traditional will fail unconditionally unless I exclude both
> > -remap and -imacros when tradcpp0 is being used. We'll unable to
> > compile too much things with gcc -traditional even when we'll
> > remove these options with tradcpp0.
>
> If the problem with -traditional is not limited to building the library,
> then changing specs _is_ the solution, because we will have to make that
> change anyway, to let users use -traditional.
-traditional was unusable with gcc-2.95.3 (simple hello world style
program which includes stdio.h and outputs a message with printf
doesn't compile). gcc-3.0 doesn't change anything here. System
headers (like stdio.h) are incompatible with -traditional also under
Linux
>
> However, I wonder: since what version of GCC did -traditional stop
> working with -imacros? Is this something new in GCC 3.0?
Verified gcc-2.95.3 doesn't feed cpp_spec to tradcpp0. gcc-3.0 does.
So for gcc-2.95.3 -imacros and -remap were excluded for tradcpp0
> Also, this seems to suggest that "gcc -traditional" will not pick up the
> __DJGPP__ and __DJGPP_MINOR__ symbols, and also will not be able to
> automatically find some of the C++ headers which need -remap, and that
> this side effect cannot be cured by changes in specs. Is that true?
True.
Andris
- Raw text -