There is nothing broken about not having the include guards there, it's
just not helpful. I'm working on the infrastructure for an error if you
call a function from within an incompatible routine at the moment (without
duplicating a lot of code it's actually a bit annoying), but there's
nothing actually wrong with the code. It's just the same as basically
saying asm("invalid_instruction") in a random function.Any configure script that was depending on error conditions from this is already broken by gcc as well, and likely icc. -eric On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM Dimitry Andric <dimi...@andric.com> wrote: > [Re-sending, used the old cfe-commits address by accident] > > Where is the other thread? This problem still exists, for both trunk and > the upcoming 3.7.0 RC3. I'll try to submit a patch tomorrow to partially > restore the include guards, so we won't have a broken release. > > -Dimitry > > On 03 Aug 2015, at 18:48, Eric Christopher <echri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> Where are the negative test cases? Diagnosing uses of these functions >> when they aren't valid is really important - it's a pretty serious >> regression if we don't. >> > > Two threads, I'm going to take this in the other thread. :) > > -eric > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
