This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Handle weak symbols
- To: fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle weak symbols
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 22:05:12 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com
> On 07-May-2001, Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday 06 May 2001 23:22, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > > - is_on_pending_weak_list:
> > > - Should return `bool'.
> >
> > Really? wasn't there just a discussion that we don't want to use
> bool in this
> > directory?
>
> Only for function parameters.
> For function return types `bool' should be fine.
>
> The reason for the difference is that traditional K&R function
> declarations specify the return type, but not the parameter types.
Actually, K&R compilers will handle it just fine. The problem is
strict ISO C89 compilers which cannot handle promoted integer types in
function prototypes paired with old K&R style function definitions.
This includes char, short and now bool. (GCC accepts it as an
extension, and warns about it with -pedantic.) Thus we avoid this
construct in the stage1 compiled areas.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Qwest Internet Solutions