On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 13:28 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:30:29PM +0100, acrux_it at libero.it wrote: > > +// Generated files will use "namespace PPC". To avoid symbol clash, > > +// undefine PPC here. PPC may be predefined on some hosts. > > +#undef PPC > > + > > I wonder if it shouldn't just be renamed to PowerPC everywhere. It's not > that much longer.Would we need to change the 'PPC' prefix on all of the file names and other associated classes too? -Hal> > Joerg > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev-- Hal Finkel Postdoctoral Appointee Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 06:59:47AM -0600, Hal Finkel wrote:> On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 13:28 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:30:29PM +0100, acrux_it at libero.it wrote: > > > +// Generated files will use "namespace PPC". To avoid symbol clash, > > > +// undefine PPC here. PPC may be predefined on some hosts. > > > +#undef PPC > > > + > > > > I wonder if it shouldn't just be renamed to PowerPC everywhere. It's not > > that much longer. > > Would we need to change the 'PPC' prefix on all of the file names and > other associated classes too?As prefix it is fine, just the namespace itself is the problem. Joerg
On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 14:16 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 06:59:47AM -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 13:28 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:30:29PM +0100, acrux_it at libero.it wrote: > > > > +// Generated files will use "namespace PPC". To avoid symbol clash, > > > > +// undefine PPC here. PPC may be predefined on some hosts. > > > > +#undef PPC > > > > + > > > > > > I wonder if it shouldn't just be renamed to PowerPC everywhere. It's not > > > that much longer. > > > > Would we need to change the 'PPC' prefix on all of the file names and > > other associated classes too? > > As prefix it is fine, just the namespace itself is the problem.I know, but I want to make sure that no one objects to breaking what seems to be a convention followed by the other targets. -Hal> > Joerg > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev-- Hal Finkel Postdoctoral Appointee Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory