https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
Bug 57691 depends on bug 57699, which changed state.
Bug 57699 Summary: Disable empty parameter list misinterpretation in libstdc++
headers when !defined(NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57699
What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, that will fix it right now.
In the longer term it would be nice to get a FE change.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #4)
> > ... by the way, I'm *very* surprised that nobody noticed this over the
> > years: the freestanding atexit is dec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Of course. Since, AFAIK, we already had the sensible () with no void in like
2005, communities outside GCC must have workarounds in place, can wait a bit
more. Let's mark the C++ front-end issue as blocking th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #4)
> ... by the way, I'm *very* surprised that nobody noticed this over the
> years: the freestanding atexit is declared like this in in 4.0.0!?!
It only matters on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've opened PR 57699 -- it would be nice not to have to write (void) in our
headers.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
... by the way, I'm *very* surprised that nobody noticed this over the years:
the freestanding atexit is declared like this in in 4.0.0!?!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Yes it is, a huge abomination, I had no idea we had something like that. Then,
I don't know, I don't think it's going away any time soon, probably we should
bite the bullet and add those with a big comment fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is due to a horrible hack in the front end which adds implicit
extern "C" blocks around system headers, and a side-effect is that function
prototypes of the form 'T f()' are treated as 'T f(...)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
This doesn't make any sense to me.
14 matches
Mail list logo
