[haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- From: Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@xxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 23:36:13 +0200
Am 06.05.2008 um 23:27 schrieb Ingo Weinhold:
It's defined in buildtools/legacy/gcc/gcc/config/i386/haiku.h. So
you'd
have to rebuild the compiler (which itself might use "#ifdef
__BEOS__" in
target platform code!). I don't know whether there is an easy way to
just
undefine the macro without rebuilding (maybe -include with a file
containing an "#undef __BEOS__" works). Other than that you could use
DiskProbe and replace the 3 instances in cpp, gcc, and g++ with
"__BEOZ__"
or something.
That's what I feared! ;-) Maybe CPP="cpp -U__BEOS__" or CPPFLAGS="-
U__BEOS__" could work for autoconf based software?
Andreas
- References:
- [haiku-development] To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- From: Ingo Weinhold
- [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- From: Andreas Färber
- [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- From: Ingo Weinhold
Other related posts:
- » [haiku-development] To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- » [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
undefine the macro without rebuilding (maybe -include with a file containing an "#undef __BEOS__" works). Other than that you could useDiskProbe and replace the 3 instances in cpp, gcc, and g++ with "__BEOZ__"
or something.
- [haiku-development] To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- From: Ingo Weinhold
- [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- From: Andreas Färber
- [haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- From: Ingo Weinhold