From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: eliz@gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
gdb-patches@sourceware.org, richard.guenther@gmail.com,
thomas@codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: MinGW compilation warnings in libiberty's xstrndup.c
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 01:25:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xn60gwicqs.fsf@greed.delorie.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5c5a27d9-b52c-7a08-45bb-1db170d8dd25@redhat.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Fri, 19 May 2017 23:56:04 +0100)
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
> Ah, yeah. AFAICS, all the declaration checks in libiberty.h are
> HAVE_DECL checks. This suggests to me that this declaration guard
> should be HAVE_DECL too [1].
Except the ones in the $funcs list, which includes strnlen. I think in
the old days, we didn't put in declarations at all... until "char *"
became a different size than "int" and we started needing them.
So some functions in libiberty are HAVE_DECL and others are still HAVE.
Ah, found it, this commit is incomplete:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg00784.html
It changes gcc's configure but nobody else's (and now we have an answer
to the three-year-old question "why don't we have a more liberal commit
policy?" ;) which breaks both libiberty and libgfortran.
> BTW, I once proposed a new libiberty.m4 file that all libiberty
> clients would source so that these checks are all centralized.
I have no philosophical problem with that type of change, but I have the
usual fear of touching anything in libiberty that's been around this
long ;-)
(this bug being a prime example of how subtle an incorrect change can be)
(and honestly, my upstream attention is elsewhere these days)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-20 0:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-08 15:37 Eli Zaretskii
2017-05-19 15:27 ` Pedro Alves
2017-05-19 15:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-05-19 16:08 ` Pedro Alves
2017-05-19 22:28 ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-19 22:31 ` Pedro Alves
2017-05-19 22:56 ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-19 23:22 ` Pedro Alves
2017-05-20 1:25 ` DJ Delorie [this message]
2017-05-22 16:28 ` Pedro Alves
2017-05-26 21:49 ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-28 18:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-05-31 6:17 ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-31 6:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
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=xn60gwicqs.fsf@greed.delorie.com \
--to=dj@redhat.com \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=thomas@codesourcery.com \
/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).