On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Andris Pavenis wrote:
I see 2 problems with update to gpc-20010409:
- #ifdef GPC_2_95_3 in gpc.c is placed before any #include statement (so it's undefined). Moving it after #include statements fixes the problem
Oh yes. #-) I put them before in case any include would need MKTEMP_EACH_FILE, but III forgot that GCC_2_95_3 is only set in an include. Will fix this.
I think you should do it just like gcc.c and put the #define just before the first usage of MKTEMP_EACH_FILE. ( it's only used in one small area ).
- Testing for exactly 2.95.3 in make-lang.in is not correct. Perhaps we should test for 2.95.[3-9] as current version in GCC_2_95 branch is already 2.95.3
OK -- though there may be other problems with new versions, and we'll have to care about them when the new versions are there, doing this change already now probably won't hurt. -- BTW, what about 2.96 (I think Red Hat released such a version)
There was quite a flap over that. Now the gcc folks absolutely refuse to make 2.96 an "official" release. I think we can safely ignore 2.96.
and 2.97 (the current development version?). Do they also have cpp0 or not yet?
Read where cpp0 is cpp with the -E flag builtin. Since this was a bug fix think it would be safe to assume so. However, since 2.97 is only "developemental snapshots" the whole thing could change overnight.
I must admit I'm quite confused about all these GCC/EGCS versions...
Me too. Shows what can happen when two independent groups merge.
Russ