public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/35017] [4.3 Regression] PR11377 pedwarns even about valid code
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:52:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080129182429.4409.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-35017-87@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  2008-01-29 18:24 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.3 Regression] PR11377 pedwarns even about valid
 code

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> TREE_READONLY isn't modifiable, so I guess that part is quite clear and I'm
> also
> pretty sure about the possibility to reference static const vars declared in
> the function.
> What is more unclear is in what kind of inline functions this should be warned
> about.  6.7.4p3 talks about inline definition of a function, is that function
> definition with inline keyword in this context (i.e. any non-static inline
> function) or is that inline definition in the 6.7.4p6 sense (one where there is
> no external definition)?
> The attached patch implements the first choice, leaving the original conditions
> for current_function_decl in both places would keep the second choice.
> Joseph?

I think it means inline definition as in 6.7.4p6 (where whether it's an 
inline definition depends on whether there are subsequent declarations 
after the definition with extern or without inline, but getting the 
diagnostics right for such cases is a separate bug).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35017


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-01-29 18:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-01-29 15:25 [Bug c/35017] New: " jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-29 15:25 ` [Bug c/35017] " jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-29 15:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-29 16:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-29 17:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-29 17:52 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-29 18:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-29 19:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-29 19:52 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com [this message]
2008-01-29 23:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-30  0:03 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080129182429.4409.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).