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
