Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR

[Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 11:54 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 3/17/2015 11:22 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >> On 3/17/2015 11:09 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>> Do we really gain anything by introducing a massive ifdef mentioning
> >>>> all targets out there?  This looks like overkill.
> >>> Was there some problem with the logic I suggested in 
> >>> <https://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2014/msg00421.html> to determine the 
> >>> type used for intptr_t without any per-architecture conditionals or 
> >>> configure tests being needed?  (It's true that if some architecture 
> >>> decides to use e.g. __int24 for intptr_t, additional cases would be 
> >>> needed, but that logic should cover all architectures where int, long or 
> >>> long long are used.)
> >> That works except in cases where the definition of uintptr_t varies based
> >> on the multilib. 
> > My proposed logic would go in an architecture-independent installed 
> > header, so I don't see the issue.
> >
> I remember you proposing this but not why it wasn't pursued. Anyway,
> I through it into the test case and it did work for my cases.
> 
> Yaakov, does it work for all your configurations?

Yes, that f.c produces zero type mismatches.

-- 
Yaakov Selkowitz
Associate Software Engineer, ARM
Red Hat, Inc.