This is the mail archive of the 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: [c/c++ (rfa)] fix 32455

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.


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