I stand corrected. That the two compilers share the same front-end
wasn't obvious. Since that is the case, I'll agree that adding
-rdynamic support is the right way to go.
This information then leads one to ask if the IA-64 back end will
eventually be merged into the main GCC code base? And in the
meantime, for IA-64, why not just make sgicc be gcc?
> From: "JAIN,SUNEEL (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <suneel_jain@xxxxxx>
> To: "'Aharon Robbins'" <arnold@xxxxxxxxxx>,
> "'pro64-support@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <pro64-support@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: sgicc, __GNUC__, and -rdynamic
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:51:19 -0700
> > 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