search for: _gcc_limits_h_

...<limits.h> -#undef _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H --- ./limitx.h.~1~ 2006-11-26 12:31:48.000000000 -0800 +++ ./limitx.h 2007-04-02 13:51:40.000000000 -0700 @@ -1,12 +1,11 @@ /* This administrivia gets added to the beginning of limits.h if the system has its own version of limits.h. */ -/* We use _GCC_LIMITS_H_ because we want this not to match - any macros that the system's limits.h uses for its own purposes. */ -#ifndef _GCC_LIMITS_H_ /* Terminated in limity.h. */ -#define _GCC_LIMITS_H_ - #ifndef _LIBC_LIMITS_H_ /* Use "..." so that we find syslimits.h only in this same directo...

...8 at 5:46 PM, David Shipman <dshipman at gmail.com> wrote: > I've just tried building r54494 on 64bit linux and had the same (no > include path) > error. Any idea what's happening here? > No. :-( Could you try Mike's suggestion? (Replicated here) Try adding: #define _GCC_LIMITS_H_ to limitx.h like so: #ifdef _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H +#define _GCC_LIMITS_H_ #include_next <limits.h> #undef _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H and then testing. A good test would do a -dM -E and seeing if everything is still defined and checking the testcase mentioned in the original email thread.

Hi all, I'm having some trouble building llvm-gcc as of today, with and without bootstrap. The error I get is: /home/kooijman/src/llvm-gcc/obj/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/kooijman/src/llvm-gcc/obj/./gcc/ -B/home/kooijman/src/llvm-gcc/obj/../install/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/home/kooijman/src/llvm-gcc/obj/../install/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem

...n at gmail.com> wrote: >> I've just tried building r54494 on 64bit linux and had the same (no >> include path) >> error. Any idea what's happening here? >> > No. :-( Could you try Mike's suggestion? (Replicated here) > > Try adding: > > #define _GCC_LIMITS_H_ > > to limitx.h like so: > > #ifdef _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H > +#define _GCC_LIMITS_H_ > #include_next <limits.h> > #undef _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H > > and then testing. A good test would do a -dM -E and seeing if > everything is still defined and checking the testcase ment...

Hi Matthijs, >> I did put in a hack, but it was horrible. It might be a good idea to >> test out Mike's suggestion to see if it's a better way of doing it. > I just tried building llvm-gcc without your hack, and it still works (even > without the fix Mike suggested). > > So, it seems that r54245 can be reverted again? > > I didn't test bootstrap, however,

I've just tried building r54494 on 64bit linux and had the same (no include path) error. Any idea what's happening here? Thanks, -David Shipman On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 6:12 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Matthijs, > >>> I did put in a hack, but it was horrible. It might be a good idea to >>> test out Mike's suggestion to see if

> to limitx.h like so: > > #ifdef _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H > +#define _GCC_LIMITS_H_ > #include_next <limits.h> > #undef _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H This fixes this problem for me on Ubuntu Hardy on x86-64. John

On Jul 30, 2008, at 11:35 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > I think this error is due to these changes: Try adding: #define _GCC_LIMITS_H_ to limitx.h like so: #ifdef _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H +#define _GCC_LIMITS_H_ #include_next <limits.h> #undef _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H and then testing. A good test would do a -dM -E and seeing if everything is still defined and checking the testcase mentioned in the original email thread.