>
> Nelson understates the case. The -rdynamic flag can't be the only part
> of GCC that sgicc doesn't support. There are a slew of
> language extensions
> that GNU code often makes use of --- properly ifdef-ed, of
> course --- and
> defining __GNUC__ is just shouting a request for trouble.
>
> Hmmm, I guess I just paraphrased what Nelson said, didn't I? Oh well.
> :-)
>
> > Fix (2) is less desirable, since leaving __GNUC__ defined can have
> > other side effects, as noted in the previous paragraph. However, it
> > still may be useful to add support for -rdynamic, possibly under a
> > different name, provided __GNUC__ remains undefined.
>
> The two issues are and should be treated orthogonally.
> Undefining __GNUC__
> for sgicc should be done in any case, whether or not support
> for -rdynamic
> is added.
>
The sgicc and sgiCC compilers share frontends, preprocessor,
assembler, linker, debugger with GNU gcc/g++ compilers. They support
the same language extensions that the GNU compilers do. One way to
view the SGI compilers is that they provide an alternate
backend for the IA64 architecture.
Given this, I think it is perfectly reasonable for sgicc to
define __GNUC__. It should be plug compatible to gcc and
adding support for -rdynamic seems like the right answer.
- Suneel Jain
|