Comment 107 for bug 908508

(In reply to David Mandelin from comment #95)

> Landry, it's definitely a maze. Sorting it out proper would be a lot of work
> so I definitely don't expect you to fix everything as part of this patch. It
> seems important to make sure ENABLE_ASSEMBLER is consistent, though, so
> combined with Mike's point about Platform.h not being public, it seems that
> we shouldn't try to set ENABLE_ASSEMBLER, ENABLE_YARR_JIT or ENABLE_JIT in
> the Makefile, and we shouldn't use them in public header files.
>
> One idea is to create a new thing that is set on the same conditions when
> ENABLE_ASSEMBLER is set and put that in js-config.h. Then you could use that
> in jscntxt.h without causing any problems. Then we could use macros to check
> that the two are consistent on one of the other files, like YarrJIT.cpp.

Getting back to that bug.. I'm a bit lost, since ENABLE_JIT, ENABLE_YARR_JIT and ENABLE_ASSEMBLER are #defined in wtf/Platform.h (depending on tons of conditions), and also set in Makefile.in. Is it wise to keep the same conflicting names ?

If i add a single variable (say JS_HAS_ASSEMBLER or JS_HAS_JIT.. gah, speak about meaningful names..) set arch-dependant (the ones with yarr jit : arm% sparc %86 x86_64 mips%) in configure.in & js-config.h where should that variable be used ?

- replace all #ifdef ENABLE_ASSEMBLER/#ifdef ENABLE_JIT/#ifdef ENABLE_YARR_JIT, since they seem to overlap ?
- or i should just use it in the chunks i'm #ifdef'ing in my attempts to fix powerpc ?
- in the same patch, should i also remove all ENABLE_ASSEMBLER/ENABLE_JIT/ENABLE_YARR_JIT=1 from Makefile.in ?

Just askin', before wrapping a patch...