Re: Need someone to look at a regression

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <r2ww8bx9uq.fsf@happy.cygnus.com>you write:
  > law@cygnus.com (Jeffrey A Law) writes:
  > 
  > >    typedef SFtype __attribute__ ((mode (SF)));
  > > 
  > > We have an explicit type (SFmode), why in the hell would we ever
  > > want/need typedef int ....?
  > 
  > Isn't it that the __attribute__ stuff is, well, an attribute and it
  > should be possible to drop it?  Then yu would get
  > 
  > 	typedef SFtype;
  > 
  > which clearly is wrong.  You simply cannot leave out the base type.
I don't see that the "int" is a base type in this case.  How can you
have an integer base type for a floating point mode?

This is one of those areas where someone familiar with language design
should have been involved in specifying exactly what is supposed to
happen.

My simplistic viewpoint is 

typedef int SFtype __attribute__ ((mode (SF)));


Is bogus -- the type is actually specified by the attribute and the
"int" is neither used nor wanted.

Frankly, I don't really care about this problem all that much, we're
talking about a possible bogus warning.  The only reason this came up
at all is because libgcc2.c uses attributes like that and egcs
complained about the implicit int.  IMHO a case of warning elimination
going too far.

I'm more than willing to go with whatever group decision we come up
with on this one.  If we decide the int is needed, then the testcase
is bogus.  If the int is not needed, then the testcase is valid and
we've got a bug in the compiler (since it shouldn't have given the
warning).

jeff