Re: [PATCH] parser: add Blackfin gcc info

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1618 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 05, 2010 22:33:21 Christopher Li wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> I wonder, does it make sense to support these kinds of
> >> architecture-specific builtins on all architectures, rather than
> >> limiting them based on some specified target architecture?
> >> 
> >> Since Sparse doesn't generate code, it can easily target all
> >> architectures simultaneously, but that doesn't mean we couldn't tell it
> >> what architecture to target.  Sparse could default to targeting the
> >> host architecture, which would avoid the need to pass extra flags in the
> >> common case.
> > 
> > it does sound like it'd be useful to add an arch command line option.
> >  but i hoped we could sneak in the Blackfin stuff first since other
> > arches (like alpha) have been whitelisted.
> 
> Can we have some "ifdef" for the blackfin architecture in the pre buffer?
> I agree with Josh, that do look like very much blackfin specific. We can
> leave the ignore attribute alone for now.

how would #ifdefs help ?  i'm not building sparse for a Blackfin arch, host or 
target wise.  if there's something more, you'd have to be specific as to what 
you mean, otherwise i wont be able to send an updated patch.

yes, these things are completely Blackfin specific, but i dont see how that's 
a barrier for entry when both attributes and the builtin ignore lists contain 
completely architecture specific stuff without any #ifdef logic.  using sparse 
on the Linux kernel for the Blackfin port is pretty useless atm because of 
these missing pieces.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]