On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:41 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:28 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> Looking at how other targets implement this check, I don't think that >>>>>>> this is a problem at all. This issue only shows on a non-bootstrapped >>>>>>> build. A full bootstrap will use correct address. >>>>>> >>>>>> The other place where it shows up is cross compilers but who is going >>>>>> to use a 3.2 compiler with GCC 4.8 anyways? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FWIW, I have no problem with checking __LP64__ only. I just want to >>>>> mention this potential issue. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Here is a different patch. It checks sizeof (void *) for those hosts >>>> where it is appropriate. Does it look OK? >>> >>> Looks OK to me, but you need a GWP reviewer to OK this change now... >>> >> >> Here is the patch with ChangeLog. Tested on Linux/x32. Jakub, >> is this OK for trunk? >> > > Hi Richard, > > Is this patch: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg00303.html > > OK for trunk? >
I checked in this patch to check __x86_64 and __LP64__. I will submit a followup patch to simplify it later. Thanks. -- H.J.
gcc-x32-pch-3.patch
Description: Binary data
