From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-75035-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 13671 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2016 15:39:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 13639 invoked by uid 89); 22 Nov 2016 15:39:45 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=management
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Evolution of ELF symbol management
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
References: <9727f95a-df3d-ec11-8c1d-9b7ea6cbcaac@redhat.com>
 <0c682496-5c13-b3c5-ff66-0f8923a1d6e3@panix.com>
 <94e35eaa-a01d-db4e-eabe-6d100e581302@redhat.com>
 <ddf76775-1ff5-d7b0-50d0-a08867b5fafb@panix.com>
 <137dfcf1-eeeb-89c6-9882-b290983bc482@redhat.com>
 <mvminrfwn0q.fsf@hawking.suse.de>
Cc: Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>, libc-alpha@sourceware.org,
        Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org>
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <543ff4e2-48da-43d4-7688-6973baeaec9f@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:39:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <mvminrfwn0q.fsf@hawking.suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00788.txt.bz2

On 11/22/2016 04:29 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Nov 22 2016, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> There also configure scripts which do
>>
>> extern char whatever();
>> main () { whatever(); }
>>
>> for link testing, without including the appropriate header (perhaps
>> deliberately).  That could be considered broken.  I'm not sure.
>
> While getting the return type wrong makes it slightly broken, the C
> standard does support declaring standard functions on your own, as long
> as you don't need special types.

Yes, that's true.  Thanks for the reminder.

Florian