public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c/114819] New: 'constructor', 'destructor' function attributes vs. function signature
@ 2024-04-23 6:30 tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-23 6:37 ` [Bug c/114819] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-04-23 6:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114819
Bug ID: 114819
Summary: 'constructor', 'destructor' function attributes vs.
function signature
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic, documentation
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In context of PR114818 "'constructor', 'destructor' function attributes vs.
'extern'", I also found that there's no user documentation that the
constructor, destructor function signature has to match 'void FN(void)', and
GCC currently doesn't check/diagnose this.
Should we update 'gcc/doc/extend.texi' for this, and implement a diagnostic
(warning or even error, enabled by default)?
I found that we only document in 'gcc/target.def':
/* Output a constructor for a symbol with a given priority. */
DEFHOOK
(constructor,
"If defined, a function that outputs assembler code to arrange to call\n\
the function referenced by @var{symbol} at initialization time.\n\
\n\
Assume that @var{symbol} is a @code{SYMBOL_REF} for a function taking\n\
no arguments and with no return value. [...]
Note "a function taking no arguments and with no return value".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/114819] 'constructor', 'destructor' function attributes vs. function signature
2024-04-23 6:30 [Bug c/114819] New: 'constructor', 'destructor' function attributes vs. function signature tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-04-23 6:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-04-23 6:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114819
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Note we incorrectly also accept it on nested functions too.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-04-23 6:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-04-23 6:30 [Bug c/114819] New: 'constructor', 'destructor' function attributes vs. function signature tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-23 6:37 ` [Bug c/114819] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
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).