This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Patch to check asm_fprintf format specifiers [take 2]
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 19:18:02 +0100 (BST)
- Subject: Re: Patch to check asm_fprintf format specifiers [take 2]
- References: <200305311447.KAA17513@caip.rutgers.edu>
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> Since the hook doesn't require a new language construct the situation
> described in the previous thread, where a new GCC removes this feature
> in favor of real extensible checking and then proceeds to try and
> compile older GCC releases with this checking style and fails to parse
> it, should not arise. So I'm going to suggest that we leave this in
Is your point that unknown format types are just warnings, not errors,
that this is deliberate, and releases have -Werror disabled?
> Regarding a testcase, I'm currently in the process of
> designing/creating one. However I recently posted a patch for
> updating the internals of asm_fprintf to fix broken and/or add missing
> specifiers. Until that settles down and/or is accepted/rejected, I'd
> prefer to submit the testcase separately.
Regarding that previous patch, where specifiers are missing/broken are
they ones that are actually used in parts of GCC that expect them to work?
(Since there is no need for asm_fprintf to implement C90 specifiers just
for the sake of it, unless some code in GCC using asm_fprintf wants to use
them.) Likewise, are the specifiers currently implemented all used? In
particular, does any use of asm_fprintf actually use floating point
specifiers or %p, which this patch includes as supported?
Joseph S. Myers