Re: Function signatures in extern "C".

[Iain Sandoe <iain@sandoe.co.uk>]

Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> Perhaps the PR should be reopened with “accepts invalid”?
>
> My impression from the PR is that the reporter was using a different
> ABI, where the name isn't reserved. Maybe the testcase should only be
> accepted with -fno-threadsafe-statics or -ffreestanding or something
> to say "I'm doing things differently".
>
> Or we could just say that G++ reserves the Itanium ABI names
> unconditionally, even if it doesn't need to use them, in which case it
> would be accepts-invalid.

Well, it’s a name in the implementation reserved namespace.

The majority of GCC platforms executing this test will cause the compiler
to generate a call to the function (and that call will have mismatched
params).  Not sure how many non-itanium ABI platforms we have at
present.

We say nothing for "-Wall -Wextra -pedantic"

(In the end, I don’t have much of an axe to grind here - this fail came up
  when I added diagnostic code to expand_call to catch cases like this
  emitted accidentally by the Fortran FE).

it seemed worth commenting at least.

cheers
Iain