https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #6)
Sounds reasonable. I put the following example together to illustrate an
incompatible alias declaration that should be diagnosed but isn't.
char* f (void) __at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I wonder why this condition on the warning is symmetrical:
(!FUNC_OR_METHOD_TYPE_P (t2)
|| (prototype_p (t1)
&& prototype_p (t2)
&& !types_compatible_p (t1, t2
I mean if you have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Martin, if you have free cycles please go ahead.
I think other attributes might suffer from the same problem (alias and
weakref). It doesn't look to me like it can be reliably detected in the
attribute handl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82323
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
