Re: Bug#699585: gdb: ftbfs on hurd-i386
On Sat, 2013-02-02 at 09:30 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Samuel Bronson, le Sat 02 Feb 2013 00:39:29 -0500, a écrit :
> > The Hurd people should probably investigate whether a MACH macro is
> > actually useful in the first place: Why not __MACH__? Is there
> > something which would stop working if MACH were no longer defined?
>
> Well, this is the same under Linux with the "linux" macro, and "i386",
> etc. :)
>
> But yes, we do consider dropping the MACH macro, we have checked the
> Debian source for such macros, it should be fine.
>
> I however don't know how far we are on this, anybody?
This was discussed already in September, October and November last year:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2012/09/msg00018.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2012/10/msg00003.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2012/11/msg00008.html
Still no decision on gcc not defining MACH or the build patch applied
upstream.
Thomas?
Reply to: