> 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. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Maxim Kuvyrkov >>>> CodeSourcery / Mentor Graphics >>>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> 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. > > Ilya, > > 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.
Hi, 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. Thanks, Ilya > > 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 >
