This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [Patch] Fix build warnings for GAS on mips-linux-gnu
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Iain Sandoe <iain at codesourcery dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:55:20 +0930
- Subject: Re: [Patch] Fix build warnings for GAS on mips-linux-gnu
- References: <6C17D860-E7DE-4E59-A4A9-E0F84CE39D0E@codesourcery.com> <20120618042218.GB28533@bubble.grove.modra.org> <alpine.DEB.email@example.com>
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 07:33:47PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > P.S. As an aside, is it intentional that the fall-back specifications are not proper prototypes?
> > Yes. It saves trouble with "const char *" vs. "char *", "unsigned
> > long" vs. "unsigned int" and the like differences when we provide a
> > declaration that doesn't match some system header declaration.
> Hmm, two issues here:
> 1. Does it really matter given that the actual purpose of these fallback
> declarations is to address the case where there are no respective
> system-header declarations or prototypes in the first place (assuming
> of course that e.g. sizeof (unsigned long) equals sizeof (unsigned
> int) where applicable)?
I think the failure mode was in cases where the HAVE_* macros were not
defined for some reason even though the system headers have a
> 2. How does it play with -Werror that we use? -- these "function
> declaration isn't a prototype" warnings will be turned into errors
> defeating the purpose of these fallback declarations.
Yes, --disable-werror will need to be used.
Australia Development Lab, IBM