This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 15 Oct 2015 15:40, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > if test "$libc_cv_gcc___thread" = no; then > > AC_MSG_ERROR([support for the __thread keyword is required]) > > fi > > As a general principle, what do people think of removing such configure > tests that exist only to produce errors, if we expect that versions > lacking support would also fail to pass the tests of minimum GCC / > binutils versions? There are a *lot* of such configure tests; removing > them is only a minor cleanup (precisely because they don't condition > anything beyond an error), but I think such tests are generally pointless. > (Cases where current tools might plausibly fail such a test should be kept > - that's for exceptional cases such as the test for a compiler defaulting > to -march=i386, where we're testing for a bad configuration rather than a > bad version.) punt them -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |