On 16/07/2014 23:03, Reid Kleckner wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Nico Rieck <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 14.07.2014 16:33, Alp Toker wrote:
> We just started internal integration testing for 3.5. This
commit breaks
> cross-compilation bootstrap builds to Windows from Fedora 20, Ubuntu
> 14.04 and other current distributions, I believe due to a
MinGW64 header
> bug that was only fixed upstream in April 2014.
>
> We'll want to remove setInvalidDecl() and make the diagnostic
either (a)
> a DefaultError warning complete with a warning group name or (b) a
> SuppressInSystemHeader error.
>
> Do you know what the correct recovery is when accepting the invalid
> code? Should we drop or accept the attribute, and does that decision
> change based on whether we're in GCC or MSVC compatibility mode?
GCC's behavior here seems strange. They don't diagnose the case of
adding a dll attribute. If you define a function, then declare it as
imported, the definition will be emitted, but the imported declaration
is used. Which code triggers this diagnostic?
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140331/102567.html
(At this point I'm in favour of relaxing the warning as much as
necessary in order not to regress MinGW support in the upcoming release.)
So for GCC-compat the attribute has to be accepted. But I have no idea
whether user code relies on this so I would tend to (a).
I don't think this extension-of-an-extension is so bad that it needs a
DefaultError warning. I'd just do a regular warning, which of course
will be silenced in a system header.
A warning is fine by me. Reid / Nico, could you suggest a name for the
diagnostic group?
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
