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' ?
next prev 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: linkBe 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).