Eric Christopher <echri...@gmail.com> writes:
> There is nothing broken about not having the include guards there, it's just
> not helpful. I'm working on the infrastructure for an error if you call a
> function from within an incompatible routine at the moment (without
> duplicating a lot of code it's actually a bit annoying), but there's nothing
> actually wrong with the code. It's just the same as basically saying asm
> ("invalid_instruction") in a random function.
>
> Any configure script that was depending on error conditions from this is
> already broken by gcc as well, and likely icc.Well, I'm pretty sure gcc will warn/error about using invalid builtins, so the configure scripts might work for it, I'm not really sure. In any case, once you get the incompatible caller checking infrastructure working we'll warn on misusing these builtins too, so this will behave as well or better than gcc for this stuff. > -eric > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM Dimitry Andric <dimi...@andric.com> wrote: > > [Re-sending, used the old cfe-commits address by accident] > > Where is the other thread? This problem still exists, for both trunk and > the upcoming 3.7.0 RC3. I'll try to submit a patch tomorrow to partially > restore the include guards, so we won't have a broken release. > > -Dimitry > > On 03 Aug 2015, at 18:48, Eric Christopher <echri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Where are the negative test cases? Diagnosing uses of these > functions > when they aren't valid is really important - it's a pretty serious > regression if we don't. > > Two threads, I'm going to take this in the other thread. :) > > -eric > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
