This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Patch] Fix build warnings for GAS on mips-linux-gnu

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 06:32:37PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 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
> > declaration.
>  But that would be a bug in our configury then (such as one observed by 
> Iain), and there is no guarantee that the implicit types are going to be 
> compatible with ones actually used by the system in question.

Yes, it does seem a bit odd.  I'm beginning to wish I hadn't tried to
answer your question about fall-back declarations..  Maybe Nick or Ian
can shed more light on this?

Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]