On Tuesday 23 April 2002 20:04, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 07:28:22PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
> > What do you all think about this patch? It covers all the cases I could
> > think of, but maybe I missed something.
>
> I don't see why functions should be singled out in having to have
> the weakening before the definition.

Hmm, I didn't want to get too aggressive in here (declare_weak wasn't called 
for VAR_DECLs before) and judging from the comments in tree.h it looks like 
TREE_ASM_WRITTEN has a slightly different meaning for a VAR_DECL. But if you 
think it's OK, I'll happily change it.

Looking at the warnings in glibc it turned out I was already too aggressive, 
the patch would warn for:

extern double strtod (__const char *__restrict __nptr,
                      char **__restrict __endptr);

extern double __strtod_internal (__const char *__restrict __nptr,
                                 char **__restrict __endptr, int __group);

extern __inline double
  strtod (__const char *__restrict __nptr, char **__restrict __endptr)
{
  return __strtod_internal (__nptr, __endptr, 0);
}

extern __inline double
  atof (__const char *__nptr)
{
    return strtod (__nptr, (char **) ((void *)0));
}

double __attribute__ ((weak))
  strtod (nptr, endptr)
    const char *nptr;
    char **endptr;
{
  return __strtod_internal (nptr, endptr, 0 );
}

I don't think we want a warning here for strtod?

Appended an updated patch with Jason's suggestions integrated as well. I'll 
run a few more tests tomorrow.

Franz.