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: [Patch] Fix gcc.dg/20050922-*.c

On Oct 24, 2013, at 7:33 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> On Oct 21, 2013, at 3:28 AM, Vidya Praveen <> wrote:
>>>> Tests gcc.dg/20050922-1.c and gcc.dg/20050922-2.c includes stdlib.h. This can
>>>> be a issue especially since they define uint32_t.
>>>> OK for 4.7, 4.8?
>>> For release branches, you'd need to transition from the
>>> theoretical to the practical.  On which systems (software)
>>> does
>>> it fail?  If none, then no, a back port isn't necessary.  If
>>> it
>>> fails on a system (or software) on which real users use, then
>>> I'll approve it once you name the system (software) and let it
>>> bake on trunk for a week and see if anyone objects?
>> I too would like to include this change on those branches, as
>> recent generic newlib changes has caused these tests to break
>> (regress) for my autotester for cris-elf testing those branches.
> Uhm, I'm on the fence, half-way wanting to retract my
> suggestion.  This seems a recent bug in newlib, in which e.g.
> #include <stdlib.h> causes uint32_t to be defined, bleeding from
> newlib-internal include of stdint.h.  On the other hand, testing
> that bleed isn't the purpose of these tests.

Ah, that's what I was interested in, recent change in newlib; that makes it even more reasonable to me.  Standard headers are supposed to include all headers they need, and if they need uint32_t (or any of the types the header that defines that type has in it) in an interface in any header that that header needs…  then it isn't a gratuitous stupidity.

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