A patch to constify gcc.c (Really, summarizing remaining warnings)

[Zack Weinberg]

On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 15:11:43 GMT, Philipp Thomas wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 23:12:06 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>  > 6.  25-35 implicit declaration of function `putc_unlocked'
>>  > 
>>I think we're still trying to resolve this one.
>
>Pardon my ignorance for not looking up the old thread (daytime phone
>calls are expensive, even if local), but my solution has been to
>simply define _GNU_SOURCE in CFLAGS. Would it really hurt if this was
>done unconditionally ?

Yes.  It doesn't solve the general problem.  Most systems do not use
GNU libc and therefore would be unaffected by this.  We want to
eliminate the warnings everywhere.  On systems that do use GNU libc,
defining _GNU_SOURCE instructs the headers to declare a huge number of
extensions.  We don't use most of them.  Some of them may conflict
with things already in GCC.  (You don't see a problem, but we can't be
sure.)

zw