* Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 John David Anglin
2001-11-13 15:03 ` guerby
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: John David Anglin @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches; +Cc: guerby
> void
> ! gnat_init_decl_processing (void)
All the functions in the file use KR style. The function actually needs
a prototype. There is one in misc.c but that is rather a strange place
for it.
Dave
--
J. David Anglin dave.anglin@nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6605)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Neil Booth
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 ` Florian Weimer
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Florian Weimer @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Neil Booth; +Cc: guerby, dave, gcc-patches
Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Using PARAMS ((void)) is fine whatever your compiler; on K & R it expands
> to () and for ANSI compilers it becomes (void).
I think for strict C89 compilers, it has to become (), too, because
you cannot mix prototypes and old-style function definitions there.
I'm not sure whether C99 compilers have to reject such code or not, or
may silently generate code which does not work as intended.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
2001-11-13 15:03 ` guerby
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 ` Neil Booth
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Florian Weimer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Neil Booth @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guerby; +Cc: dave, gcc-patches
guerby@acm.org wrote:-
> Looking in other ada/*.c files both style are used (PARAMS((void)) vs
> (void))
Using PARAMS ((void)) is fine whatever your compiler; on K & R it expands
to () and for ANSI compilers it becomes (void).
It's in the function definition that it really matters what you do.
Sorry for not putting the declaration in gigi.h; I never noticed that.
I assumed GNAT pulled it all in from tree.h like other front ends do.
I'll get it right in future.
Neil.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
2001-11-13 15:03 [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c John David Anglin
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 ` guerby
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Neil Booth
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: guerby @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dave; +Cc: gcc-patches
> All the functions in the file use KR style. The function actually needs
> a prototype. There is one in misc.c but that is rather a strange place
> for it.
Not true, I checked to see wether void was already used and found:
void
end_subprog_body (void)
Looking in other ada/*.c files both style are used (PARAMS((void)) vs (void)).
It would be trivial to move to one or another. Richard, should I test and submit
a patch moving to one of those style (and which one)?
BTW, do the ada/*.c file use C features not supported by your average
K&R compiler? (Giving a false sense of K&R'ness makes no good IMHO.)
--
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 Richard Kenner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Richard Kenner @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guerby; +Cc: gcc-patches
This does not apply to GNAT files since we already need GNAT + GCC
installed to start with so we do have an ANSI compiler around :).
But I still try to follow the K&R rules in GNAT C sources for
consistency.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 Richard Kenner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Richard Kenner @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guerby; +Cc: gcc-patches
Untested but obvious, ok to commit?
Oh, that's right: this is not OK. I misread it and thought you were
changing the name. This looks like a missing declaration somewhere.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
2001-11-13 15:03 ` guerby
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 ` Florian Weimer
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Mark Mitchell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Florian Weimer @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guerby; +Cc: grahams, gcc-patches
<guerby@acm.org> writes:
D>> I think is is wrong it needs to be buildable with a K&R compiler.
>
> This does not apply to GNAT files since we already need GNAT + GCC
> installed to start with so we do have an ANSI compiler around :).
Of course, you could always bootstrap the C compiler first, and then
the Ada frontend, but I don't think it's correct to assume that the
preinstalled C compiler can deal with prototypes and new-style
function definitions.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
2001-11-13 15:03 guerby
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 ` Graham Stott
2001-11-13 15:03 ` guerby
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Graham Stott @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guerby; +Cc: gcc-patches
guerby@acm.org wrote:
>
> Fixes:
>
> stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/home/guerby/work/gcc/install-2001-11-16-19-21-56/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -c -DIN_GCC `echo -g -O2 -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wtraditional -pedantic -Wno-long-long |sed -e 's/-pedantic//g' -e 's/-Wtraditional//g'` -g -O2 -I- -I. -I.. -I../../../gcc/gcc/ada -I../../../gcc/gcc/ada/.. -I../../../gcc/gcc/ada/../config -I../../../gcc/gcc/ada/../../include ../../../gcc/gcc/ada/utils.c
> ../../../gcc/gcc/ada/utils.c:482: warning: function declaration isn't a prototype
>
> Untested but obvious, ok to commit?
>
I think is is wrong it needs to be buildable with a K&R compiler.
The proper fix is to rename "init_decl_processing" in gigi.h
Graham
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 guerby
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Graham Stott
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: guerby @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches
Fixes:
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/home/guerby/work/gcc/install-2001-11-16-19-21-56/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -c -DIN_GCC `echo -g -O2 -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wtraditional -pedantic -Wno-long-long |sed -e 's/-pedantic//g' -e 's/-Wtraditional//g'` -g -O2 -I- -I. -I.. -I../../../gcc/gcc/ada -I../../../gcc/gcc/ada/.. -I../../../gcc/gcc/ada/../config -I../../../gcc/gcc/ada/../../include ../../../gcc/gcc/ada/utils.c
../../../gcc/gcc/ada/utils.c:482: warning: function declaration isn't a prototype
Untested but obvious, ok to commit?
--
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>
2001-11-16 Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>
* utils.c: Fix warning.
Index: utils.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/ada/utils.c,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -c -3 -p -r1.4 utils.c
*** utils.c 2001/11/15 10:00:54 1.4
--- utils.c 2001/11/16 19:04:57
*************** pushdecl (decl)
*** 478,484 ****
front end has been run. */
void
! gnat_init_decl_processing ()
{
lineno = 0;
--- 478,484 ----
front end has been run. */
void
! gnat_init_decl_processing (void)
{
lineno = 0;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
2001-11-13 15:03 Richard Kenner
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 ` guerby
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: guerby @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kenner; +Cc: gcc-patches
> Yes, but doesn't this depend on a pending patch?
Neil's stuff has been commited if that's what you're referring to:
2001-11-15 Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>
* misc.c (gnat_init): Change prototype. Include the
functionality of the old init_parse and init_decl_processing.
(gnat_init_decl_processing): New prototype.
(init_parse): Remove.
* utils.c (init_decl_processing): Rename gnat_init_decl_processing.
--
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 Richard Kenner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Richard Kenner @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guerby; +Cc: gcc-patches
Not true, I checked to see wether void was already used and found:
void
end_subprog_body (void)
That's an error.
Looking in other ada/*.c files both style are used (PARAMS((void)) vs
(void)). It would be trivial to move to one or another. Richard,
should I test and submit a patch moving to one of those style (and
which one)?
They should all be the K&R way. Consider such a patch preapproved.
BTW, do the ada/*.c file use C features not supported by your average
K&R compiler? (Giving a false sense of K&R'ness makes no good IMHO.)
They are not supposed to.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Graham Stott
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 ` guerby
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Florian Weimer
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Mark Mitchell
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: guerby @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: grahams; +Cc: gcc-patches
> I think is is wrong it needs to be buildable with a K&R compiler.
This does not apply to GNAT files since we already need GNAT + GCC
installed to start with so we do have an ANSI compiler around :).
> The proper fix is to rename "init_decl_processing" in gigi.h
I indeed forgot this part of the patch.
--
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>
2001-11-16 Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>
* gigi.h, utils.c: Fix warning.
Index: utils.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/ada/utils.c,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -c -3 -p -r1.4 utils.c
*** utils.c 2001/11/15 10:00:54 1.4
--- utils.c 2001/11/16 19:16:49
*************** pushdecl (decl)
*** 478,484 ****
front end has been run. */
void
! gnat_init_decl_processing ()
{
lineno = 0;
--- 478,484 ----
front end has been run. */
void
! gnat_init_decl_processing (void)
{
lineno = 0;
Index: gigi.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/ada/gigi.h,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -c -3 -p -r1.2 gigi.h
*** gigi.h 2001/10/23 22:59:52 1.2
--- gigi.h 2001/11/16 19:16:51
*************** extern tree pushdecl PARAMS ((tree));
*** 433,439 ****
/* Create the predefined scalar types such as `integer_type_node' needed
in the gcc back-end and initialize the global binding level. */
! extern void init_decl_processing PARAMS ((void));
extern void init_gigi_decls PARAMS ((tree, tree));
/* Return an integer type with the number of bits of precision given by
--- 433,439 ----
/* Create the predefined scalar types such as `integer_type_node' needed
in the gcc back-end and initialize the global binding level. */
! extern void gnat_init_decl_processing PARAMS ((void));
extern void init_gigi_decls PARAMS ((tree, tree));
/* Return an integer type with the number of bits of precision given by
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
2001-11-13 15:03 ` guerby
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Florian Weimer
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 ` Mark Mitchell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guerby, grahams; +Cc: gcc-patches
--On Friday, November 16, 2001 08:16:18 PM +0100 "guerby@acm.org"
<guerby@acm.org> wrote:
>> I think is is wrong it needs to be buildable with a K&R compiler.
>
> This does not apply to GNAT files since we already need GNAT + GCC
> installed to start with so we do have an ANSI compiler around :).
I see no reason that GNAT should use different coding conventions from
the rest of GCC. G++ is always built with GCC too, but we still use
the GNU Coding Conventions. There are two advantages: consistency,
and its much easier to promote things out of G++ into common
code when appropriate.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c
@ 2001-11-13 15:03 Richard Kenner
2001-11-13 15:03 ` guerby
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Richard Kenner @ 2001-11-13 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guerby; +Cc: gcc-patches
Untested but obvious, ok to commit?
Yes, but doesn't this depend on a pending patch?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-11-16 23:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-11-13 15:03 [Ada] Trivial fix for warning in utils.c John David Anglin
2001-11-13 15:03 ` guerby
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Neil Booth
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Florian Weimer
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-11-13 15:03 Richard Kenner
2001-11-13 15:03 guerby
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Graham Stott
2001-11-13 15:03 ` guerby
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Florian Weimer
2001-11-13 15:03 ` Mark Mitchell
2001-11-13 15:03 Richard Kenner
2001-11-13 15:03 ` guerby
2001-11-13 15:03 Richard Kenner
2001-11-13 15:03 Richard Kenner
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).