On 11/9/18 7:21 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
> Ping.
>
> I'd like to commit this. The discussion seems to have ended up with the
> conclusion that this is a reasonable approach.
>
> paul
>
>
>> On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>> A number of test cases contain declarations
Ping.
I'd like to commit this. The discussion seems to have ended up with the
conclusion that this is a reasonable approach.
paul
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> A number of test cases contain declarations like:
> void *memcpy();
> which currently are silently
On 11/05/2018 11:17 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Nov 5, 2018, at 11:45 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
...
I can do that, but I'm wondering if some systems have different prototypes than
the C standard calls for so I'd end up breaking those.I wouldn't worry about
those. I think the bigger question
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 11:45 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>>> ...
>>
>> I can do that, but I'm wondering if some systems have different prototypes
>> than the C standard calls for so I'd end up breaking those.I wouldn't worry
>> about those. I think the bigger question (thanks
> Martin) is whether
On 11/5/18 8:12 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 3, 2018, at 10:12 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 11/1/18 1:13 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>> A number of test cases contain declarations like:
>>> void *memcpy();
>>> which currently are silently accepted on most platforms but not on all;
>>>
On 11/05/2018 08:12 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Nov 3, 2018, at 10:12 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/1/18 1:13 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
A number of test cases contain declarations like:
void *memcpy();
which currently are silently accepted on most platforms but not on all; pdp11 (and
possibly
> On Nov 3, 2018, at 10:12 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 11/1/18 1:13 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> A number of test cases contain declarations like:
>> void *memcpy();
>> which currently are silently accepted on most platforms but not on all;
>> pdp11 (and possibly some others) generate a
On 11/1/18 1:13 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> A number of test cases contain declarations like:
> void *memcpy();
> which currently are silently accepted on most platforms but not on all; pdp11
> (and possibly some others) generate a "conflicting types for built-in
> function" warning.
>
> It was
A number of test cases contain declarations like:
void *memcpy();
which currently are silently accepted on most platforms but not on all; pdp11
(and possibly some others) generate a "conflicting types for built-in function"
warning.
It was suggested to prune those messages because the test
