X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <2e59e6970601162049n68146063r278dc2e21b5aeadd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:49:38 -0600
From: * * <richardvoigt AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: ATT: gcc maintainer (was Re: cpp does not honor the -undef option.)
In-Reply-To: <20060116111311.GC10265@sellafield.lysator.liu.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20060109095759 DOT GB24524 AT sellafield DOT lysator DOT liu DOT se> 	 <20060116111311 DOT GC10265 AT sellafield DOT lysator DOT liu DOT se>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id k0H4nsxe019234

On 1/16/06, Peter Ekberg <peda AT lysator DOT liu DOT se> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 10:58:00AM +0100, Peter Ekberg wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I recently tried to build a package that was using cpp for other
> > purposes than preprocessing C files. Its configure script was
> > looking for a way to not have cpp predefine anything, and it
> > specifically tried the -undef option, but failed. From reading the
> > docs, I couldn't figure out why. Here's a quote from "info cpp":
> >
> > '-undef'
> >      Do not predefine any system-specific or GCC-specific macros.  The
> >      standard predefined macros remain defined.  *Note Standard
> >      Predefined Macros::.

Apparently some macros must remain defined.  What macros specifically
did you notice still defined that you would consider "system-specific"
(i.e. __cygwin__ or __CYGWIN__ or CYGWIN) or "gcc-specific"?

> >
> > So I searched the web a bit and figured that I could probably fix
> > it in the specs file. I realise that the specs file probably isn't
> > the canonical place to change this, but I'll leave that to the gcc
> > maintainer.
> >
> > Attached is a patch for the specs file that wraps all old define
> > rules for cpp inside the following:
> >
> > %{!undef:old define rules}
> >
> > I don't know if this is the correct thing to do, but it works for
> > me<TM>.
>
> GCC maintainer, are you there? Can you come out and play, please? :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
>

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/