On Feb 22, 2005, at 6:36 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Devang Patel wrote:
Would it be OK, if this warnings are disabled for system headers ?
What is the built-in function involved and what (and why) is the
different
system header type? Is this a case where a system reuses a non
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Devang Patel wrote:
> Would it be OK, if this warnings are disabled for system headers ?
What is the built-in function involved and what (and why) is the different
system header type? Is this a case where a system reuses a nonstandard
name GCC has built in for an entirely
Would it be OK, if this warnings are disabled for system headers ?
Thanks,
-
Devang
--- c-decl.c.~1~2005-01-06 19:26:09.0 -0800
+++ c-decl.c2005-02-15 11:59:48.0 -0800
@@ -1169,11 +1169,15 @@ diagnose_mismatched_decls (tree newdecl,
*oldtypep = oldtype = tryt
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> But the program at issue does not invoke anything having to do with
> POSIX, it makes no sense to pretend it has undefined behaviour.
The GNU C dialect, which is the default, includes various built-in
functions from POSIX as well as various other mi
"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Matt Austern wrote:
|
| > What was the rationale behind issuing this warning? I find it rather
| > unfriendly. In this example, after all, the user isn't doing anything
wrong.
| > scalb is not defined in any standard that I c
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Matt Austern wrote:
> What was the rationale behind issuing this warning? I find it rather
> unfriendly. In this example, after all, the user isn't doing anything wrong.
> scalb is not defined in any standard that I can see, and users have every
> right to declare a function
In the C front end, when diagnose_mismatched_decls sees a declaration
of a function whose name is the same as a builtin's but whose types are
different, we use the declaration we see but we issue a warning. For
example:
[isolde:tmp]$ cat foo.c
extern double scalb ( double, int );
[isolde:tmp]$
