Re: Patch for c/13801

[Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>]

"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk> writes:

> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> > There are also some extra diagnostics for incompatible implicit
>> > function declarations as part of making implicit function declarations
>> > work properly if the previous declaration is out of scope.  For
>> > discussion of that for incompatibly implicitly declaring a built-in
>> > function, see <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg00021.html>.
>> 
>> Submit this change separately.  With regard to the incompatible
>> declarations of built-ins, I agree with Geoff, and I'd add that you
>> should not diagnose incompatible redeclarations of built-ins that are
>> not covered by the currently selected standard.
>
> Here is the provisional separate patch to add the warnings / errors
> for incompatible implicit function declarations.
>
> I have made no changes regarding built-in functions not in the current
> standard, i.e. redeclaring them gets the mandatory warning.  Apart
> from the question as to which function the user wants, for which such
> a diagnostic seems entirely appropriate, this is consistent with the
> warnings for (for example)
>
> int imaxabs;
>
> (declaring such explicitly as a different type of symbol), and
> DECL_BUILT_IN_NONANSI (which allowed different types of built-in
> functions to be distinguished) was removed some time ago.

Enh.  I don't care that much, I guess.  Patch is OK.  I take it you
already committed all the additions of explicit declarations of
builtins?

zw