On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:28:02PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 8:32 AM Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 07:17:20AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 5:13 AM Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 08:46:09PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > > Clang detects that getcwd is being re-declared and signatures don't > > > > > match, simple solution is to let clang use overloadable attribute > > > > >... > > > > > +Fixes > > > > > +dcigettext.c:147:7: error: redeclaration of 'getcwd' must have the > > > > > 'overloadable' attribute > > > > >... > > > > > +-char *getcwd (); > > > > >... > > > > > > > > Looks like a bug in clang to me, and should be fixed there. > > > > > > > > The code does not tell anything regarding the parameters, > > > > but clang seems to misinterpret it as "no parameters". > > > > > > > its conflicting with declaration from glibc system headers > > >... > > > > Why did the glibc 2.31 upgrade add a not upstreamed patch from 2017 that > > created these conflicts? > > This supports building userspace with clang better and find more > errors when fortify sources option is on.
What "errors" are you referring to? >From a semantic point of view the code is correct. This is a relict from K&R C that novice C programmers often misinterpret, but I'd say gcc made the right call by not including the warning for the more general case in -Wall. The cases with an actual problem are being caught by a different gcc warning that has been included in -Wall for decades. > this patch was already proposed to glibc and I will follow up on it. This is an area with different semantics in C and C++. All your "fixes" indicate that the result is C++ semantics in C code. Which is not something you can do in the public glibc headers. > It definitely improves fortify when using clang What is the point of all this when you "fix" the bogus error caused by this patch with a function attribute like in this case for gettext? The gettext patch is simply wrong. > > The commit message does not mention that this patch was added, > > and an OE-only patch that makes a compiler reject valid C code > > is not good. > > I think thats my bad as it slipped my mind with numerous rebases I did > over the life of the glibc patchset. >... Was the glibc upgrade sent to the mailing list for review? cu Adrian -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
