Guys,
is there any particular reason we're using -traditional in
EXTRA_AFLAGS in Makefiles?
According to
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Traditional-macros.html#Traditional-macros,
(and to my painful recent experience), it disallows the use of token
pasting in pre-processor macros, which is a functionality we heavily
rely upon for the rest of kernel things.
I'd suggest just removing it, but obviously, there might well be
people with good reasons for it to stay (The same effect of token
pasting can be achieved in some ways, so if -traditional stays, that's
not the greatest problem in the world... just that token pasting in
asm files will diverge from the way in which we (-)traditionally do
;-) )
So, does any one have a word on that?
--
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net
"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> Guys,
>
> is there any particular reason we're using -traditional in
> EXTRA_AFLAGS in Makefiles?
>
What? Where? I thought I removed them all. Or is this from the x86_64
tree?
> I'd suggest just removing it, but obviously, there might well be
> people with good reasons for it to stay (The same effect of token
> pasting can be achieved in some ways, so if -traditional stays, that's
> not the greatest problem in the world... just that token pasting in
> asm files will diverge from the way in which we (-)traditionally do
> ;-) )
>
> So, does any one have a word on that?
>
Kill -traditional where ever it may be. You might need to fix up some
cruft in the process, but shouldn't be too hard.
J
On 10/25/07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]> wrote:
> Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > Guys,
> >
> > is there any particular reason we're using -traditional in
> > EXTRA_AFLAGS in Makefiles?
> >
>
> What? Where? I thought I removed them all. Or is this from the x86_64
> tree?
This is from arch/x86/kernel/Makefile_64
> > I'd suggest just removing it, but obviously, there might well be
> > people with good reasons for it to stay (The same effect of token
> > pasting can be achieved in some ways, so if -traditional stays, that's
> > not the greatest problem in the world... just that token pasting in
> > asm files will diverge from the way in which we (-)traditionally do
> > ;-) )
> >
> > So, does any one have a word on that?
> >
>
>
> Kill -traditional where ever it may be. You might need to fix up some
> cruft in the process, but shouldn't be too hard.
>
I only feel confortable about killing it from x86_64 or any other
arches I may have access to. Otherwise, there's no way I can fix up
the crufts ;)
A patch for Makefile_64 will follow in a while.
--
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net
"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
On Thursday 25 October 2007 16:21, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > > is there any particular reason we're using -traditional in
> > > EXTRA_AFLAGS in Makefiles?
> >
> > What? Where? I thought I removed them all. Or is this from the x86_64
> > tree?
>
> This is from arch/x86/kernel/Makefile_64
Indeed. I, too, would like it to be removed, even only on the grounds
that whoever added it didn't add a small one-line comment explaining why.
--
vda