> I don't see how a target hook is required for the command-line idea. > Targets already have a perfectly working way of changing the default > of a command-line option.
That's true.. sorry, my bad. Anyway, could somebody take a look at the patch itself? --Alexander >> 2013/4/23 Alexander Ivchenko <aivch...@gmail.com>: >>> *ping* >>> >>> thanks >>> Alexander >>> >>> 2013/3/28 Alexander Ivchenko <aivch...@gmail.com>: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> 4.8 is now branched, lets come back to the discussion that we had >>>> before. I updated the patch a little >>>> bit since we now have linux-protos.h and linux-android.c files. >>>> >>>> I tried to preserve the avaiability of c99 for all targets, but it's >>>> pretty difficult, because we are changing >>>> the defaults. Passing an empty string as second argument doesn't look >>>> very good, but on the other hand >>>> the user has one clear way for checking the presence of a certain >>>> function. But of course we can create >>>> another function, that will call targetm.libc_has_function >>>> (function_class, "") within itself. >>>> >>>> best regards, >>>> Alexander >>>> >>>> 2013/1/7 Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com>: >>>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012, Alexander Ivchenko wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you very much for your input! Please, take a look at the updated >>>>>> version: >>>>>> I fixed coding style, moved documentation for TARGET_LIBC_HAS_FUNCTION >>>>>> to target.def. >>>>>> Removed TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS and TARGET_HAS_SINCOS and all their >>>>>> influence and moved the implementation of linux_libc_has_function to >>>>>> host-linux.c. >>>>>> I changed the defaults: now it is assumed that we have C99 runtime, >>>>>> but no sincos. I updated all needed gcc/config/*.h. But 'm not sure in >>>>>> this part, >>>>>> cause I don't have the opportunity to test it properly... >>>>> >>>>> This patch seems mostly plausible, though there are various places that >>>>> call targetm.libc_has_function with and empty string as second argument, >>>>> that should be naming the specific function instead. I haven't reviewed >>>>> the details, and at this development stage I think it will need to wait >>>>> until after 4.8 branches. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Joseph S. Myers >>>>> jos...@codesourcery.com