Re: Need someone to look at a regression

[Andreas Schwab <schwab at issan dot informatik dot uni-dortmund dot de>]

Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com> writes:

|> gcc.dg/980626-1.c is consistently showing up as a regression when
|> comparing the egcs-1.1 against egcs-1.0.3a and gcc-2.8.1.
|> 
|> This is a test for a bogus warning.
|> 
|> Can someone look into why egcs-1.1 is behaving differently for this
|> test?  Compile with -Wimplicit-int.
|> 
|> gcc-2.8.1 and egcs-1.0.3 will probably not issue any warnings (which
|> is the correct behavior IMHO).  egcs-1.1 will issue a bogus warning.
|> 
|> Thanks!
|> 
|> 
|> int main()
|> {
|>   typedef SFtype __attribute__ ((mode (SF)));
|>   typedef DFtype __attribute__ ((mode (DF)));
|>   typedef HItype __attribute__ ((mode (HI)));
|>   typedef SItype __attribute__ ((mode (SI)));
|>   typedef DItype __attribute__ ((mode (DI)));
|>   typedef UHItype __attribute__ ((mode (HI)));
|>   typedef USItype __attribute__ ((mode (SI)));
|>   typedef UDItype __attribute__ ((mode (DI)));
|>   return 0;
|> }

I can't check it out currently, but egcs-1.1 is correct if it warns about
implicit int.  Use `typedef int SFtype __attribute__ ((mode (SF)))'
instead.