public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "pierre.poissinger at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug preprocessor/55115] [>=4.5.0 regression] missing headers as fatal breaks cproto logic
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:43:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-55115-4-R9gnioe90v@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-55115-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55115

--- Comment #3 from Pierre Poissinger <pierre.poissinger at gmail dot com> 2012-10-29 14:42:09 UTC ---
Hi,

Typically: The header is used, and contains all the 'visible' functions found
in source BUT it's only needed:
a) To perform real compilation: To check that function called are called
correctly
b) As export/header for the lib.

cproto only preproc the file via -E option.

Quick 'real life' example:
myfuncs.h: Auto generated proto, generated out of a.c and b.c
a.c: Define a(), calls b() - include 'myfuncs.h'
b.c: Define b() - include 'myfuncs.h'

=> the "include" of the generated myfuncs.h file is to avoid local definitions
+ allow early check if functions signature changes for whatever reasons.

Now - myfuncs.h being auto generated, during first build, prototyping will fail
quickly due to "Missing headers"... 
This create some kind of a "Chicken/Egg" problem :-)

If adding an option is annoying: Maybe then the 'fatal' should not be enforced
if run is limited to preproc only, aka '-E' ?


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-10-29 14:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-10-29 11:59 [Bug preprocessor/55115] New: " pierre.poissinger at gmail dot com
2012-10-29 12:54 ` [Bug preprocessor/55115] " manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-29 14:30 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-29 14:43 ` pierre.poissinger at gmail dot com [this message]
2012-10-29 14:47 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-29 14:54 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-29 14:55 ` pierre.poissinger at gmail dot com
2012-10-29 15:00 ` pierre.poissinger at gmail dot com
2012-10-29 15:03 ` pierre.poissinger at gmail dot com
2012-10-29 15:13 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-29 15:24 ` pierre.poissinger at gmail dot com
2012-10-31 22:46 ` pierre.poissinger at gmail dot com
2014-09-14 15:31 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-09  0:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-09 11:05 ` [Bug preprocessor/55115] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-23  8:14 ` [Bug preprocessor/55115] [4.8/4.9/5/6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:03 ` [Bug preprocessor/55115] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:33 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-09-01 14:48 ` Robert.Gomes at igt dot com

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=bug-55115-4-R9gnioe90v@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --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).