[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:
> http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_10.html
>
> 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'
appropriately.
> 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.
Good.
Andrew.
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, (continued)
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Michael Koch, 2004/08/03
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Roman Kennke, 2004/08/04
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Ingo Prötel, 2004/08/04
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Andrew Haley, 2004/08/04
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Michael Koch, 2004/08/04
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Andrew Haley, 2004/08/04
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Michael Koch, 2004/08/04
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Andrew Haley, 2004/08/04
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Mark Wielaard, 2004/08/08
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?,
Andrew Haley <=
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Dalibor Topic, 2004/08/09
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Michael Koch, 2004/08/04
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Ingo Prötel, 2004/08/04
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Michael Koch, 2004/08/04
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Tom Tromey, 2004/08/04
Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Roman Kennke, 2004/08/03
Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Steven Augart, 2004/08/06