On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Devang Patel wrote: > Would it be OK, if this warnings are disabled for system headers ?
What is the built-in function involved and what (and why) is the different system header type? Is this a case where a system reuses a nonstandard name GCC has built in for an entirely different purpose? We already are meant to have some laxity in matching the types of built-in functions to those of system header declarations (to allow both for pre-ISO-C systems and for not knowing within GCC what type FILE is). Disabling this warning for system headers may well make sense - but it would lead to users getting / not getting the built-in according to whether the particular translation unit happened to include that header, so I'd like to understand the actual problem. I think the fact that a warning is disabled in a system header is testable in the gcc.dg testsuite: have a .c file include a .h file, the .h file containing the offending declaration after #pragma GCC system_header. This test should fail before your patch and pass afterwards. What you can't so readily test in such testcases is for diagnostics that are *meant* to appear in the system header, as DejaGnu seems only to look at dg-error/dg-warning annotations in the main file and interprets all line numbers in diagnostics as referring to the main file without regard to the file named in the diagnostic. -- Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CodeSourcery mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
