On 13-Mar-06, 15:27 (CST), Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not if the relevant header hasn't been included. No "#include
> > ", no compiler messing with "strdup()."
>
> You are misinformed. First, note that strdup() is not in the
> standard
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12-Mar-06, 04:22 (CST), Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 01:43:34AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> > This is a warning and not an error, because using one's own strdup()
>> > function (that would take ints) is p
On 10-Mar-06, 20:47 (CST), David Mosberger-Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with gcc-4.0 warnings is that you can't
> distinguish between harmless implicit function declarations and ones
> that need to be flagged.
Fix them all. There's no excuse for missing prototypes: they're trivi
On 12-Mar-06, 04:22 (CST), Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 01:43:34AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > This is a warning and not an error, because using one's own strdup()
> > function (that would take ints) is perfectly legal.
>
> No, it is not. At least not w
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 09:20:13PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Matthew R. Dempsky, le Sun 12 Mar 2006 14:09:54 -0600, a écrit :
> > gcc has the -fno-builtin and -fno-builtin-FUNCTION options.
>
> Or better, -fno-hosted and -fhosted...
What makes those options better in this situation?
--
T
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 04:13 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "David Mosberger-Tang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 3/11/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> > $ gcc-3.3 -c -g -O -Wall t.c
> >> > t.c: In function `foo':
> >> > t.c:4: warning: implicit declaration o
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 02:09:54PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> gcc has the -fno-builtin and -fno-builtin-FUNCTION options.
Which does not change the state of a hosted compiler.
Bastian
--
Schshschshchsch.
-- The Gorn, "Arena", stardate 3046.2
signature.asc
Description:
Matthew R. Dempsky, le Sun 12 Mar 2006 14:09:54 -0600, a écrit :
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:21:40AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 01:43:34AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > This is a warning and not an error, because using one's own strdup()
> > > function (that woul
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:21:40AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 01:43:34AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > This is a warning and not an error, because using one's own strdup()
> > function (that would take ints) is perfectly legal.
>
> No, it is not. At least not with a
On 3/11/06, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a warning and not an error, because using one's own strdup()
Is there any reason not to add an explicit declaration (in any case)?
> function (that would take ints) is perfectly legal. gcc-4.0 emits the
> warning to let the programm
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 01:43:34AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> This is a warning and not an error, because using one's own strdup()
> function (that would take ints) is perfectly legal.
No, it is not. At least not with a compiler in hosted mode. In this
mode, the compiler is allowed to have an
On 3/11/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, does ia64 NOT map anything into the lower 4GiB address
> space like alpha does?
Yup. Normally, nothing gets mapped below 0x2000.
--david
--
Mosberger Consulting LLC, http://www.mosberger-consulting.com/
"David Mosberger-Tang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 3/11/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > $ gcc-3.3 -c -g -O -Wall t.c
>> > t.c: In function `foo':
>> > t.c:4: warning: implicit declaration of function `strdup'
>> > t.c:4: warning: return makes pointer from integer wi
On 3/11/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > $ gcc-3.3 -c -g -O -Wall t.c
> > t.c: In function `foo':
> > t.c:4: warning: implicit declaration of function `strdup'
> > t.c:4: warning: return makes pointer from integer without a cast
>
> (all asm is from amd64)
>
> 004005
"David Mosberger-Tang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Samuel,
>
> You're missing the point of the check-implicit-pointer-functions
> script. Its purposes is not to "grep for warnings" but instead to
> look for pairs of warnings that are *guaranteed* to cause crashes on
> 64-bit machines. gcc -Wal
Hi,
David Mosberger-Tang, le Fri 10 Mar 2006 19:47:10 -0700, a écrit :
> Its purposes is not to "grep for warnings" but instead to
> look for pairs of warnings that are *guaranteed* to cause crashes on
> 64-bit machines.
I did understand that. And my abs() example shows that gcc-4.0 doesn't
comp
Samuel,
You're missing the point of the check-implicit-pointer-functions
script. Its purposes is not to "grep for warnings" but instead to
look for pairs of warnings that are *guaranteed* to cause crashes on
64-bit machines. gcc -Wall normally spits out tons of spurious
warnings for 64-bit dirty
Samuel Thibault, le Sat 11 Mar 2006 01:43:34 +0100, a écrit :
> > $ gcc-3.3 -c -g -O -Wall t.c
> > t.c: In function `foo':
> > t.c:4: warning: implicit declaration of function `strdup'
> > t.c:4: warning: return makes pointer from integer without a cast
>
> Because strdup() here gets an implicit
>
David Mosberger-Tang, le Fri 10 Mar 2006 17:06:22 -0700, a écrit :
> I'm inclined to treat this as a gcc-4 bug.
It is not.
> $ cat t.c
> char *
> foo (char *str)
> {
> return strdup(str);
> }
> $ gcc-3.3 -c -g -O -Wall t.c
> t.c: In function `foo':
> t.c:4: warning: implicit declaration of func
I'm inclined to treat this as a gcc-4 bug. To witness:
$ cat t.c
char *
foo (char *str)
{
return strdup(str);
}
$ gcc-3.3 -c -g -O -Wall t.c
t.c: In function `foo':
t.c:4: warning: implicit declaration of function `strdup'
t.c:4: warning: return makes pointer from integer without a cast
gcc-4.0
dann frazier, le Fri 10 Mar 2006 15:46:58 -0700, a écrit :
> On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 00:30 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ah, good. But your script misses some warnings:
> >
> > oss.c:83: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function
> > 'strdu
> >
> > because o
On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 00:30 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ah, good. But your script misses some warnings:
>
> oss.c:83: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function
> 'strdu
>
> because of "incompatible" and "built-in". Please fix ;)
Thanks Samuel,
Can you poin
Hi,
Ah, good. But your script misses some warnings:
oss.c:83: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'strdu
because of "incompatible" and "built-in". Please fix ;)
Regards,
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Maybe the debian policy should require
> > -Werror-implicit-function-declaration in CFLAGS so as to avoid such
> > issue?
>
> Following that path would lead to -Wall -Werror :-P
>
> I personally received some bug reports by Da
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Maybe the debian policy should require
> -Werror-implicit-function-declaration in CFLAGS so as to avoid such
> issue?
Following that path would lead to -Wall -Werror :-P
I personally received some bug reports by Dann Frazier (dannf) f
On 20-Jan-06, 16:55 (CST), Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, and definitely maintainers should clean this up when they see it
> unless they know it's safe. On the other hand, *most* of the cases of
> this warning in my experience are harmless because the function returns an
> int. I
Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kurt Roeckx, le Fri 20 Jan 2006 23:56:22 +0100, a écrit :
>> But this really is the maintainer of the package that should look
>> at this. I don't think it's up to the buildd's maintainers to
>> go and look for this type of bugs.
> Ok, but maintainer
Kurt Roeckx, le Fri 20 Jan 2006 23:56:22 +0100, a écrit :
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:19:58PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Samuel Thibault, le Fri 20 Jan 2006 23:15:11 +0100, a écrit :
> > > Maybe the debian policy should require
> > > -Werror-implicit-function-declaration in CFLAGS so as to
Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In buildd logs, I could find several
> test.c:3: warning: implicit declaration of function 'f'
> warnings
> This can be very problematic on 64bits architectures such as AMD64:
Yes, and definitely maintainers should clean this up when they see it
unle
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:19:58PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Samuel Thibault, le Fri 20 Jan 2006 23:15:11 +0100, a écrit :
> > Maybe the debian policy should require
> > -Werror-implicit-function-declaration in CFLAGS so as to avoid such
> > issue?
>
> Or buildds could check for "implicit de
Samuel Thibault, le Fri 20 Jan 2006 23:15:11 +0100, a écrit :
> Maybe the debian policy should require
> -Werror-implicit-function-declaration in CFLAGS so as to avoid such
> issue?
Or buildds could check for "implicit declaration of function" warnings.
Regards,
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Hi,
In buildd logs, I could find several
test.c:3: warning: implicit declaration of function 'f'
warnings
This can be very problematic on 64bits architectures such as AMD64:
test.c:
#include
int main(void) {
printf("%p\n",f(-1));
return 0;
}
test2.c:
#include
void *f(long a) {
32 matches
Mail list logo
