> On 4/04/2012, at 2:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It's simpler that you think. The target headers ($tm_file in config.gcc
>>>> -- gnu-user.h, linux*.h, etc. in this case) are all included into tm.h,
>>>> which serves as proxy to all those headers. All definitions made in
>>>> preceding headers are available in subsequent headers. So, given that
>>>> i386/gnu-user*.h precedes i386/linux*.h in config.gcc's $tm_file, you only
>>>> need to touch linux*.h.
>>>> Maxim Kuvyrkov
>>>> CodeSourcery / Mentor Graphics
>>> I prepared version with common linux.h and gnu-user.h. Does it look OK?
>>> Bootstrapped and checked on linux-x86_64.
>> There are so many duplicates in gnu-user64.h and gnu-user32.h.
>> Please move all of them to gnu-user.h.
> Why i386/gnu-user.h had to change at all? It seems like you trying to clean
> up/simplify stuff in i386/gnu-user.h, but in this case it seems (a) not
> required for the main purpose of this submission, and (b) excessive.
Initially my patch introduced few macroses in i386/gnu-user.h to use
them in i386/linux.h. After I created new i386/linux.h and included it
into i386/linux64.h I got a build failure because new i386/linux.h
used these new definition from i386/gnu-user.h and only
i386/gnu-user64.h was included into tm.h. So, I renamed
i386/gnu-user.h into i386/gnu-user32.h and created new i386/gnu-user.h
with these missing definitions. Otherwise I would have to copy all
changes made in i386/gnu-user.h to i386/gnu-user64.h.
> As a side note, if it were up to me, I would merge current i386/linux.h and
> i386/linux64.h into one file -- i386/linux.h -- instead of having similar
> definitions spread around. But that would be a clean up in itself, and would
> require a separate submission.
> Thank you,
> Maxim Kuvyrkov
> CodeSourcery / Mentor Graphics