On 11/5/18 8:12 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > > >> On Nov 3, 2018, at 10:12 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 11/1/18 1:13 PM, Paul Koning wrote: >>> A number of test cases contain declarations like: >>> void *memcpy(); >>> which currently are silently accepted on most platforms but not on all; >>> pdp11 (and possibly some others) generate a "conflicting types for built-in >>> function" warning. >>> >>> It was suggested to prune those messages because the test cases where these >>> occur are not looking for the message but are testing some other issue, so >>> the message is not relevant. The attached patch adds dg-prune-output >>> directives to do so. >>> >>> Ok for trunk? >>> >>> paul >>> >>> ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2018-11-01 Paul Koning <n...@arrl.net> >>> >>> * gcc.dg/Walloca-16.c: Ignore conflicting types for built-in >>> warnings. >>> * gcc.dg/Wrestrict-4.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/Wrestrict-5.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/pr83463.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/torture/pr55890-2.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/torture/pr55890-3.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/torture/pr71816.c: Ditto. >> ISTM it'd be better to just fix memcpy to have a correct prototype. >> >> jeff > > I can do that, but I'm wondering if some systems have different prototypes > than the C standard calls for so I'd end up breaking those.I wouldn't worry > about those. I think the bigger question (thanks Martin) is whether or not any of those tests are checking for issues that arise specifically due to not having a full prototype available (and in those cases your fix is probably more appropriate).
Probably the only way to figure that out is to dig into the history of each one :( Mighty unpleasant. jeff
