[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?

From: Andrew Haley
Subject: Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:28:02 +0100

Mark Wielaard writes:
 > On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 10:27, Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > I guess as long as we're stuck with C90 we can't use inline.
 > > Am I right in thinking that GNU Classpath targets C90?
 > Yes. More accurately would probably be that we try to support platforms
 > that still depend on gcc-2.95. This is not that uncommon.

Really?  Not uncommon that platforms still depend on 2.95?  Are these
platforms that have been orphande due to lack of maintainers, or some
other reason?

 > And it is what the GNU Coding Standards recommend:
 > We are currently compiling our C code with:
 >     dnl We want ISO C90 pedantic ansi, but with longlong (jlong) support
 >     dnl and modern POSIX and BSD C library functions/prototypes.
 >     AM_CFLAGS='-ansi -pedantic -Wmissing-declarations -Wmissing-prototypes 
 > -Wstrict-prototypes -Wall -Wno-long-long -D_BSD_SOURCE '
 > I didn't know that would prevent inlining in general.
 > But even if it does then we are probably better of with a little slower
 > code that is easier to debug. GNU Classpath is still very much in rapid
 > prototyping mode and we should be careful about premature optimization.

Right.  All we have to do to support C90 is `#define inline'

 > I think this is the thing that most people found at this last year. That
 > the use of C macros makes debugging very difficult. There are other
 > inconveniences that come from the use the a extra layer of indirection,
 > but I believe we can work around most of them as long as we get rid of C
 > #defines in so many places or make it possible to more easily debug code
 > that uses them.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]