Re: h8300, m32c and PRIuPTR

[Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>]

On March 17, 2015 2:42:28 PM CDT, Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi@redhat.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 11:54 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> On 3/17/2015 11:22 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> >> On 3/17/2015 11:09 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >>>> Do we really gain anything by introducing a massive ifdef
>mentioning
>> >>>> all targets out there?  This looks like overkill.
>> >>> Was there some problem with the logic I suggested in 
>> >>> <https://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2014/msg00421.html> to
>determine the 
>> >>> type used for intptr_t without any per-architecture conditionals
>or 
>> >>> configure tests being needed?  (It's true that if some
>architecture 
>> >>> decides to use e.g. __int24 for intptr_t, additional cases would
>be 
>> >>> needed, but that logic should cover all architectures where int,
>long or 
>> >>> long long are used.)
>> >> That works except in cases where the definition of uintptr_t
>varies based
>> >> on the multilib. 
>> > My proposed logic would go in an architecture-independent installed
>
>> > header, so I don't see the issue.
>> >
>> I remember you proposing this but not why it wasn't pursued. Anyway,
>> I through it into the test case and it did work for my cases.
>> 
>> Yaakov, does it work for all your configurations?
>
>Yes, that f.c produces zero type mismatches.

Awesome! 

I will propose a patch removing the probe from configure.in and adding this to sys/config.h including the push/pop suggestion.

--joel