This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [c/c++ (rfa)] fix 32455
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:06:37 -0400
- Subject: Re: [c/c++ (rfa)] fix 32455
- References: <20080206180345.GB17948@redhat.com> <84fc9c000802061224g357aefe7qc230a4aa1928d592@mail.gmail.com> <20080206231550.GC17948@redhat.com> <47AF50F5.50104@codesourcery.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 11:31:01AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Henderson wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 09:24:14PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >>We reject __builtin_field, but not __builtin_struct? What happens
> >>if you re-declare the __builtin_va_list type?
> >
> >Err, probably bad things. I'll see about fixing that too.
>
> I think it's a good idea to completely forbid declarations of __builtin
> things and I think the C++ parts of the patch are fine. However, I do
> expect we'll see some fallout from people who have header files that do
> declare __builtins. Perhaps for 4.3 we should make this an
> unconditional warning, and indicate that in 4.4 it will go away completely?
glibc internal headers declare some __builtin_* functions in order to
add some __asm ("name") to them to override what symbol is used for them
if not optimized out. I think we should only error out if declaring
__builtin_* types or if explicit __builtin_* function declaration has
non-matching types.
Jakub