Hello Jeremie,
On 05/05/2019 15:10, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
On Sun, May 05 2019, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS <jus...@atlantide.t28.net> wrote:
[...]
Maybe there are lots of those warnings and fixing them all means
patching, but this is technically the wrong approach. The right
approach is to include the appropriate headers.
The problem is that in some files the "//" comment style has been used
(and it isn't allowed in ANSI C - don't know why clang isn't
complaining).
We can simply use a more specific flag
(-Wno-implicit-function-declaration" to obtain the same effect.
Implicit function declarations was a misfeature of the C language, fixed
by C99. I don't think we want to go backwards.
Of course, I fully agree with you in principle; but pragmatically, since
those headers doesn't exist, we have only 2 options here: either we
accept the log "pollution" or we selectively hide those warnings (mind:
I'm not saying that they aren't important, I just would like to
empathize other messages that could be significant and that could be
missed otherwise...)
I'm already working with upstream in order to clean-up the code, but
there are some more serious issues to solve with higher priority (not
related to this port, which is just one of the tools
developed/maintained by them, see [1]).
I don't have a sparc64 station, so I'm asking for confirmation.
You can test on eg amd64 using
make clean all CC=gcc CXX=g++
Thanks; so using "-std=c89" I can replicate the issue reported; it is
also confirmed that the errors go away using
"-Wno-implicit-function-declaration.
[1] http://opencircuitdesign.com/
--
Alessandro DE LAURENZIS
[mailto:jus...@atlantide.t28.net]
Web: http://www.atlantide.t28.net
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/delaurenzis/
