This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] PR libgcc/83112, Fix warnings on libgcc float128-ifunc.c
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- To: Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:53:55 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR libgcc/83112, Fix warnings on libgcc float128-ifunc.c
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20171127192131.GA15914@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org> <aabb7e7e-4678-f4a4-9240-6587438a0aeb@gmail.com> <20171127234009.GA28990@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org> <20171130024250.GX10515@gate.crashing.org> <20171130205425.GA11524@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org> <20171201054022.GA5348@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org>
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:40:22AM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> After committing the previous patch, I noticed that it was now generating
> warnings for __{mul,div}kc3_{sw,hw} not having a prototype that I hadn't
> noticed during development of the patch. This is due to the fact that before I
> added the ifunc support, it was only compiling __{mul,div}kc3, and those have
> built-in declarations. I installed this patch as being obvious:
>
> 2017-11-30 Michael Meissner <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> * config/rs6000/_mulkc3.c (__mulkc3): Add forward declaration.
> * config/rs6000/_divkc3.c (__divkc3): Likewise.
>
> Index: libgcc/config/rs6000/_divkc3.c
> ===================================================================
> --- libgcc/config/rs6000/_divkc3.c (revision 255288)
> +++ libgcc/config/rs6000/_divkc3.c (working copy)
> @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ typedef __complex float KCtype __attribu
> #define __divkc3 __divkc3_sw
> #endif
>
> +extern KCtype __divkc3 (KFtype, KFtype, KFtype, KFtype);
> +
> KCtype
> __divkc3 (KFtype a, KFtype b, KFtype c, KFtype d)
> {
How does this warn? -Wmissing-declarations? Should this declaration be
in a header then?
A code comment explaining why you do a declaration for exactly the same
thing as there is two lines later would help; otherwise people will try
to delete it again :-)
Segher