From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12430 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2012 15:00:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 12013 invoked by uid 48); 29 Oct 2012 14:59:52 -0000 From: "pierre.poissinger at gmail dot com" 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 15:00:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: preprocessor X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: pierre.poissinger at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg02704.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55115 --- Comment #7 from Pierre Poissinger 2012-10-29 14:59:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > That seems an odd way to generate missing declarations. Missing headers may > lead to different code being compiled because of undefined macros, feature test > macros, pragmas, etc. We don't compile... Prototyping only use the preproc result to retrieve function signatures. When compilation do occurs - headers have been generated and all is fine... > If the header is missing, then ignoring the error will produce exactly the same > result as commenting out the #include. Yes - but that mean to hack around to bypass a "good" idea.. > Anyway, not a bug. That's why I say "regression" (it is) and "enhancement" :-)