This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug other/65254] New: libiberty produces using extended field designator is an extension warnings in clang
- From: "howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 19:13:34 +0000
- Subject: [Bug other/65254] New: libiberty produces using extended field designator is an extension warnings in clang
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65254
Bug ID: 65254
Summary: libiberty produces using extended field designator is
an extension warnings in clang
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu
The simple-object-xcoff.c file in libiberty produces a number of warnings of
the form...
./../../gcc-5-20150228/libiberty/simple-object-xcoff.c:330:12: warning: using
extended field designator is an extension [-Wextended-offsetof]
+ offsetof (struct external_filehdr,
^
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/../lib/clang/6.0/include/stddef.h:87:24:
note: expanded from macro
'offsetof'
#define offsetof(t, d) __builtin_offsetof(t, d)
^
under the clang compiler as "offsetof(T, field,subfield)" and "offsetof(T,
arr[3])" are C/C++ extensions and only "offsetof(T, field)" is standard.
Shouldn't these be recoded to use the standard form?