From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 3439B3858D38; Wed,  6 Dec 2023 11:03:16 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3439B3858D38
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1701860596;
	bh=dhAbS4o7Uei9sQ/ERa4zgQlCrjiYMCV3WyFgGm/pYKE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ubCyLjpF5hxF8Nfsq+Fj2ALhkoAmkw2O0wSoHMdwN61dlVj8ew5ILnkpnEO6dk5gr
	 IReUB0LbbR5wqBvZagv2ulQ+OVwzgrYX2dmuf3ENM4fN7dACpJ4Ks4PLl+Kc5d7iWj
	 QhOAM9I28wQPfuwGOd6Zze4oGNFXWQVnOLUIZMFk=
From: "tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libgcc/109289] Conflicting types for built-in functions in
 libgcc/emutls.c
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2023 11:03:14 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libgcc
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-109289-4-wi3aTsRzFR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109289-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109289-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109289

Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #8 from Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to myself from comment #2)
>     [...]/source-gcc/libgcc/emutls.c: In function =E2=80=98__emutls_get_a=
ddress=E2=80=99:
>     [...]/source-gcc/libgcc/emutls.c:172:13: error: implicit declaration =
of
> function =E2=80=98calloc=E2=80=99 [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>       172 |       arr =3D calloc (size + 1, sizeof (void *));
>           |             ^~~~~~
>     [...]/source-gcc/libgcc/emutls.c:32:1: note: include =E2=80=98<stdlib=
.h>=E2=80=99 or
> provide a declaration of =E2=80=98calloc=E2=80=99
>        31 | #include "gthr.h"
>       +++ |+#include <stdlib.h>
>        32 |
>     [...]/source-gcc/libgcc/emutls.c:172:13: warning: incompatible implic=
it
> declaration of built-in function =E2=80=98calloc=E2=80=99 [-Wbuiltin-decl=
aration-mismatch]
>       172 |       arr =3D calloc (size + 1, sizeof (void *));
>           |             ^~~~~~
>     [...]/source-gcc/libgcc/emutls.c:172:13: note: include =E2=80=98<stdl=
ib.h>=E2=80=99 or
> provide a declaration of =E2=80=98calloc=E2=80=99
>     [...]/source-gcc/libgcc/emutls.c:184:13: error: implicit declaration =
of
> function =E2=80=98realloc=E2=80=99 [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>       184 |       arr =3D realloc (arr, (size + 1) * sizeof (void *));
>           |             ^~~~~~~
>     [...]/source-gcc/libgcc/emutls.c:184:13: note: include =E2=80=98<stdl=
ib.h>=E2=80=99 or
> provide a declaration of =E2=80=98realloc=E2=80=99
>     [...]/source-gcc/libgcc/emutls.c:184:13: warning: incompatible implic=
it
> declaration of built-in function =E2=80=98realloc=E2=80=99 [-Wbuiltin-dec=
laration-mismatch]
>     [...]/source-gcc/libgcc/emutls.c:184:13: note: include =E2=80=98<stdl=
ib.h>=E2=80=99 or
> provide a declaration of =E2=80=98realloc=E2=80=99

> GCC's suggestion to "include =E2=80=98<stdlib.h>=E2=80=99" needs to be ca=
refully reviewed,
> in case this is meant to be buildable in an environment without C library
> headers?

(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #3)
> Thomas, the safe thing to do would be to use __builtin_calloc and
> __builtin_realloc in those spots because it avoids a dependency on an
> external header that might not exist at this point.

That part got resolved differently, in commit
r14-6207-g6e84dafcc72d1cd6d028b42f1801e092a91d3214 "tsystem.h: Declare
calloc/realloc #ifdef inhibit_libc".=