On 07/04/2018 11:32 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 07/03/2018 08:33 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But since the number of warnings here hasn't changed, the ones
>>> in GCC logs predate my changes. So updating the tests seems
>>> like an improvement to consider independently of the patch.
>>
On 07/03/2018 08:33 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/29/2018 09:54 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
All the warnings I have seen are because of declarations like
the one in the test below that checks for the presence of symbol
sin in the library:
char sin ();
int main () { return sin (); }
GCC has
On 06/29/2018 09:54 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> All the warnings I have seen are because of declarations like
> the one in the test below that checks for the presence of symbol
> sin in the library:
>
> char sin ();
> int main () { return sin (); }
>
> GCC has warned for this code by
Hi Martin,
really nice work.
Just one minor nit:
>--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>@@ -6568,8 +6568,13 @@ attributes.
> @item -Wno-builtin-declaration-mismatch
> @opindex Wno-builtin-declaration-mismatch
> @opindex Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch
>-Warn if a built-in
On 6/29/18, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/27/2018 08:40 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 06/27/2018 03:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 06/27/2018 09:27 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 09:17:07AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> About 115 tests fail due to incompatible declarations of
On 06/29/2018 09:11 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/27/2018 08:40 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/27/2018 03:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/27/2018 09:27 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 09:17:07AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
About 115 tests fail due to incompatible declarations of
the
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 09:11:39AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > I checked all GCC's config logs and although there are 543
> > instances of the -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch warning in
> > an x86_64-linux build, none of them is an error and
> > the number is the same as before the patch.
> That's
On 06/27/2018 08:40 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 06/27/2018 03:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 06/27/2018 09:27 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 09:17:07AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> About 115 tests fail due to incompatible declarations of
> the built-in functions below (the
On 06/27/2018 03:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/27/2018 09:27 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 09:17:07AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
About 115 tests fail due to incompatible declarations of
the built-in functions below (the number shows the number
of warnings for each functions):
On 06/27/2018 12:44 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
On 6/26/18, Martin Sebor wrote:
With the exception of built-ins with the ellipsis (like sprintf),
GCC silently accepts declarations of built-in functions without
prototypes as well as calls to such functions with any numbers
or types of arguments,
I was hoping to avoid the complexity but I appreciate
the desire for a more permissive solution, at least for
some transitional period.
I've reworked the patch to avoid diagnosing 'void abort();'
(the only library built-in that takes no arguments).
Instead, calls that pass arguments to it are
On 06/27/2018 09:27 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 09:17:07AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> About 115 tests fail due to incompatible declarations of
>>> the built-in functions below (the number shows the number
>>> of warnings for each functions):
>>>
>>> 428 abort
>>> 58
On 6/26/18, Martin Sebor wrote:
> With the exception of built-ins with the ellipsis (like sprintf),
> GCC silently accepts declarations of built-in functions without
> prototypes as well as calls to such functions with any numbers
> or types of arguments, compatible or otherwise. Calls with
>
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 09:17:07AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > About 115 tests fail due to incompatible declarations of
> > the built-in functions below (the number shows the number
> > of warnings for each functions):
> >
> > 428 abort
> > 58 exit
> > 36 memcpy
> > 17 memmove
> > 15
On 06/26/2018 08:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> With the exception of built-ins with the ellipsis (like sprintf),
> GCC silently accepts declarations of built-in functions without
> prototypes as well as calls to such functions with any numbers
> or types of arguments, compatible or otherwise.
With the exception of built-ins with the ellipsis (like sprintf),
GCC silently accepts declarations of built-in functions without
prototypes as well as calls to such functions with any numbers
or types of arguments, compatible or otherwise. Calls with
arguments whose number and types match
16 matches
Mail list logo
