On 06/26/2018 05:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > Attached is an updated patch to tighten up the warning and also > prevent ICEs in the middle-end like in PR 86308 or PR 86202. > > I took Richard's suggestion to add the POINTER_TYPE_P() check > to detect pointer/integer conflicts. That also avoids the ICEs > above. > > I also dealt with the fileptr_type_node problem so that file > I/O built-ins can be declared to take any object pointer type > as an argument, and that argument has to be the same for all > them. > > I'm not too happy about the interaction with -Wextra but short > of enabling the stricter checks even without it or introducing > multiple levels for -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch I don't see > a good alternative. > > Martin > > gcc-86125.diff > > > PR c/86125 - missing -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch on a mismatched return > type > PR middle-end/86308 - ICE in verify_gimple calling index() with an invalid > declaration > PR middle-end/86202 - ICE in get_range_info calling an invalid memcpy() > declaration > > gcc/c/ChangeLog: > > PR c/86125 > PR middle-end/86202 > PR middle-end/86308 > * c-decl.c (match_builtin_function_types): Add arguments. > (diagnose_mismatched_decls): Diagnose mismatched declarations > of built-ins more strictly. > * doc/invoke.texi (-Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch): Update. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > PR c/86125 > PR middle-end/86202 > PR middle-end/86308 > * gcc.dg/Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch.c: New test. > * gcc.dg/Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch-2.c: New test. > * gcc.dg/Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch-3.c: New test. > * gcc.dg/Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch-4.c: New test. > * gcc.dg/builtins-69.c: New test.
[ ... ] > > diff --git a/gcc/c/c-decl.c b/gcc/c/c-decl.c > index af16cfd..6c9e667 100644 > --- a/gcc/c/c-decl.c > +++ b/gcc/c/c-decl.c > @@ -1628,43 +1628,82 @@ c_bind (location_t loc, tree decl, bool is_global) > bind (DECL_NAME (decl), decl, scope, false, nested, loc); > } > > + > /* Subroutine of compare_decls. Allow harmless mismatches in return > and argument types provided that the type modes match. This function > - return a unified type given a suitable match, and 0 otherwise. */ > + returns a unified type given a suitable match, and 0 otherwise. */ > > static tree > -match_builtin_function_types (tree newtype, tree oldtype) > +match_builtin_function_types (tree newtype, tree oldtype, > + tree *strict, unsigned *argno) As Joseph notes, you need to update the function comment here. [ ... ] >> + /* Store the first FILE* argument type seen (whatever it is), > + and expect any subsequent declarations of file I/O built-ins > + to refer to it rather than to fileptr_type_node which is just > + void*. */ > + static tree last_fileptr_type; Is this actually safe? Isn't the type in GC memory? And if so, what prevents it from being GC'd? At the least I think you need to register this as a GC root. Why are we handling fileptr_types specially here to begin with? jeff
