On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bernd Edlinger
<bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> wrote:
> On 11/01/16 16:20, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 10/17/2016 03:18 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> I'm not even sure we need a new warning. Can we combine this warning
>> with the block that currently follows?
>
> After 20 years of not having a warning on that,
> an implicitly enabled warning would at least break lots of bogus
> test cases.
Would it, though? Which test cases still break with the current patch?
> Of course in C we have an implicitly enabled warning,
> so I would like to at least enable the warning on -Wall, thus
> -Wshadow is too weak IMO.
Right. The -Wshadow warning is for file-local declarations, so that
doesn't apply to your testcase; I was thinking that we should hit the
first (currently unconditional) warning.
>>> else if ((DECL_EXTERN_C_P (newdecl)
>>> && DECL_EXTERN_C_P (olddecl))
>>> || compparms (TYPE_ARG_TYPES (TREE_TYPE (newdecl)),
>>> TYPE_ARG_TYPES (TREE_TYPE (olddecl))))
So I was thinking to drop the "else" and the compparms test.
>>> {
>>> /* A near match; override the builtin. */
>>>
>>> if (TREE_PUBLIC (newdecl))
>>> warning_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (newdecl), 0,
>>> "new declaration %q#D ambiguates built-in "
>>> "declaration %q#D", newdecl, olddecl);
So we would hit this warning. And change the message to remove
"ambiguates", since we're removing the compparms.
> This started because I wanted to add builtin functions for some
> special_function_p names. And I wanted to warn the user if he uses a
> name that is recognized by special_function_p, but the parameters
> don't match. Now I think we need to teach special_function_p to
> distinguish "C" functions from "C++" functions, which it currently
> cannot do, because that knowledge is only in the C++ FE.
It could look at DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME rather than DECL_NAME?
Jason
