> On Jan 23, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Rafael Espíndola <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> On 23 January 2015 at 14:34, John McCall <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Rafael Espíndola <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> How is it not a viable fight? Is the section attribute coming from a
>> completely different place? Or are you suggesting that it is never viable
>> to tell people that they ought to fix their code, no matter how
>> unnecessarily perverse it is? A section should be an intrinsic part of an
>> definition, saying that you can’t define the same thing in multiple
>> inconsistent ways is not even slightly unreasonable.
>>
>> The bug first got reported to us while trying to build glibc. The bug
>> Richard noticed was fixed in gcc because it was breaking the linux kernel.
>> If anyone thinks it is productive to try to get them to change, go for it.
>
> Sorry, do these open-source projects no longer accept patches? Adding
> section attributes after a definition does not seem defensible to me, and I
> would guess that the declarations are actually in the same file, just in the
> wrong order.
>
> Maybe, but I have better things to do than being a message boy between your
> opinion on gnu extensions and their use of them.
Rafael, you are taking this very personally and apparently trying to pick a
fight. I’m sorry, but putting visibility aside, this is not the right fix, and
this code should be considered ill-formed. We should not allow declarations
following a definition to add section attributes, and we should not allow
redeclarations to add asm attributes at all.
John.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
