[Bug bootstrap/53343] [4.8 regression] options.c:9944:1: error: no previous prototype for 'common_handle_option_auto' breaks bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53343 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-07 11:53:20 UTC --- Fixed, --disable-build-poststage1-with-cxx no longer existent.
[Bug bootstrap/53343] [4.8 regression] options.c:9944:1: error: no previous prototype for 'common_handle_option_auto' breaks bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53343 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
[Bug bootstrap/53343] [4.8 regression] options.c:9944:1: error: no previous prototype for 'common_handle_option_auto' breaks bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53343 --- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-05-27 21:05:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) --disable-build-poststage1-with-cxx Is there a reason why you are using this option? Yes, 1. It's a valid option, and it doesn't disable any functionality in the final compiler. 2. Bootstrapping in C++ mode has been reported to increase bootstrap time, I don't have any numbers, but this was mentioned last year around the time the default was changed. As I bootstrap more or less continuously on fairly underpowered boxes (arm, m68k, even my dual-cpu sparc64 SunBlade2500 is too slow compared to my x86 boxes), I don't want to spend cycles (and generate heat) on something that is of no value to me. 3. The C++ FE has repeatedly failed to warn on some forms of code that the C FE does warn about, allowing dodgy (for a C-centric definition of dodgy) code to enter the gcc code base. Bootstrapping in C mode ensures that such regressions are detected.
[Bug bootstrap/53343] [4.8 regression] options.c:9944:1: error: no previous prototype for 'common_handle_option_auto' breaks bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53343 Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-27 23:11:28 UTC --- See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-05/msg00152.html
[Bug bootstrap/53343] [4.8 regression] options.c:9944:1: error: no previous prototype for 'common_handle_option_auto' breaks bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53343 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-26 23:54:26 UTC --- --disable-build-poststage1-with-cxx Is there a reason why you are using this option?
[Bug bootstrap/53343] [4.8 regression] options.c:9944:1: error: no previous prototype for 'common_handle_option_auto' breaks bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53343 Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-15 12:05:16 UTC --- This is the successful compilation line in x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu: /home/manuel/test2/187462M/build/./prev-gcc/g++ -B/home/manuel/test2/187462M/build/./prev-gcc/ -B/home/manuel/test2/./187462M/install/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -nostdinc++ -B/home/manuel/test2/187462M/build/prev-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs -B/home/manuel/test2/187462M/build/prev-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/.libs -I/home/manuel/test2/187462M/build/prev-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -I/home/manuel/test2/187462M/build/prev-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include -I/home/manuel/test2/src/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++ -L/home/manuel/test2/187462M/build/prev-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs -L/home/manuel/test2/187462M/build/prev-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/.libs -c -g -O2 -gtoggle -DIN_GCC -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Werror -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I/home/manuel/test2/src/gcc -I/home/manuel/test2/src/gcc/. -I/home/manuel/test2/src/gcc/../include -I/home/manuel/test2/src/gcc/../libcpp/include -I/opt/cfarm/mpfr-2.4.1//include -I/opt/cfarm/mpc-0.8/include -I/home/manuel/test2/src/gcc/../libdecnumber -I/home/manuel/test2/src/gcc/../libdecnumber/bid -I../libdecnumberoptions.c -o options.o So g++ is missing -Wmissing-prototypes (actually, -Wmissing-declarations). see PR 50134. Not sure what is the best way to fix this. Declare also the functions in options.c? Including options.h in options.c is maybe problematic.
