This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] PR 53063 encode group options in .opt files


On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
<lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 May 2012 19:25, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Chung-Lin Tang
>> <cltang@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012/5/17 01:55 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>>>> I'm guessing these changes are the cause of a full C bootstrap
>>>>> > (--disable-build-poststage1-with-cxx) failure I'm seeing on trunk. The
>>>>> > *_handle_option_auto function prototypes are not seen in options.c, and
>>>>> > -Werror -Wmissing-prototypes are in effect (oddly, such strict checking
>>>>> > is not enforced in the default post-stage1 C++ bootstrap)
>>>> Yep, We should add -Wmissing-declarations to the post-stage1 flags,
>>>> which also exists in C. Could you also add that to your patch?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm a little unsure of how -Wmissing-declarations vs
>>> -Wmissing-prototypes behave for C? Anyways here's a patch to add
>>> -Wmissing-declarations for C++, keeping C as is.
>>
>> What is the purpose of ?-Wmissing-declarations for C++?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134

The point is: it is mostly useless for C++.  The rationale for its
existence in C are largely irrelevant in the context of C++.

-- Gaby


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]