From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10230 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2004 20:47:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10202 invoked by uid 48); 3 Feb 2004 20:47:04 -0000 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040203204704.10201.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040125122814.13856.aj@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20040125122814.13856.aj@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/13856] [3.4/3.5 Regression] hidden support broken with builtin functions X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00439.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-02-03 20:47 ------- Sorry, I was wrong: of course this is related to builtin functions. In fact, the current behaviour is directly caused by Zack's patch to fix PR 18314 (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-01/msg02475.html). What happens is that - first, we have a builtin declaration - second, we get an excplicit declaration which matches the builtin; it provides new attributes that are merged into the builtin decl - third, we get a K&R definition; after Zack's patch K&R definitions are considered to always override the builtin decl, hence the builtin decl is thrown away together with the changed attributes Is this behaviour wrong? Is the source code valid in the first place? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13856