This is the mail archive of the
newlib@sourceware.org
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR
- From: Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi at redhat dot com>
- To: newlib at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:49:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5506017E dot 8080301 at oarcorp dot com> <5506AECF dot 3040600 at redhat dot com> <5506E448 dot 7080000 at redhat dot com> <5506EADF dot 6070803 at oarcorp dot com> <20150316150842 dot GI6096 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <5506FCAA dot 8030403 at oarcorp dot com> <20150316161732 dot GJ6096 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <55070486 dot 8060503 at oarcorp dot com> <20150316164918 dot GK6096 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <55071AC5 dot 40104 at oarcorp dot com> <1426533957 dot 8104 dot 52 dot camel at redhat dot com> <55072FBB dot 8080107 at oarcorp dot com>
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 14:32 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> On 3/16/2015 2:25 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 13:02 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >> But remember, not every newlib target is an RTEMS target. This balance
> >> could shift based on the other bare machine targets. Does someone
> >> have *-elf targets handy for targets that do not have RTEMS to test using
> >> my script and test case?
> > Attached are what I ended up with after fixing the warnings.
> >
> Thanks!!! Can you add a unique #warning to each #define case and
> see what the distribution is?
>
> I hacked on my version and ended up with this:
>
> 2 #warning "CASE: 1 long long only"
> 8 #warning "CASE: 2 long but use int"
> 7 #warning "CASE: 3 long use long"
> 4 #warning "CASE: 4 int use int"
11 CASE: 1
147 CASE: 2
88 CASE: 3
11 CASE: 4
> I could fold the two cases in the "long long" block into one. Maybe
> you have a target that uses the second case.
None of my targets used __STRINGIFY(ll##x).
> That will let us know how the if/else should go. Of course, one
> school of thought is that **ALL** targets should be listed and
> you get an error otherwise. That ensures that no one misses
> a spot where a porter should look.
Note that I'm still missing (at least) the following newlib targets:
avr-elf: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64401
cr16-elf: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64424
iq2000-elf: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64400
m32c-elf: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64403
mep-elf: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64402
or1k-elf: requires GCC 5.0
xstormy16-elf: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64407
I see you mentioned m32c earlier, do you have a patch for gcc-4.9.2?
--
Yaakov Selkowitz
Associate Software Engineer, ARM
Red Hat, Inc.
- References:
- h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR
- Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR
- Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR
- Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR
- Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR
- Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR
- Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR
- Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR
- Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR
- Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR
- Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR
- Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR