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: [PATCH]: kill HOST_PTR_PRINTF


"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caipclassic.rutgers.edu> writes:

|  > "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caipclassic.rutgers.edu> writes:
|  > 
|  > [...]
|  > 
|  > |	* aclocal.m4 (gcc_AC_FUNC_PRINTF_PTR): Delete.
|  > |	* configure.ac: Don't call gcc_AC_FUNC_PRINTF_PTR.
|  > 
|  > Instead of deleting the test entirely, I would rather see a mandatory
|  > check that halt the build process if "%p" is not supported, i.e. a
|  > kind of assertion.
|  > -- Gaby
| 
| IMHO, that's overkill.
| 
| Beyond the "-Werror would have barfed" rationale, I have more evidence
| that %p works everywhere we host GCC.  If you look at the sources,
| there are already a few uses of %p that have snuck in.  So if it was a
| problem we would have known by now.
| 
| Do we assert for any other C90 features before using them? 

As I understand it we do require ISO C90 compiler, but not ISO C90
library.  Given that, either

  (1) the lack of assertion of ISO C90 library function is a bug; or
  (2) we move on assuming ISO C90 library.

If we don't do (2) then failing to assert is not a feature.

-- Gaby


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