On 10/31/2018 03:10 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Oct 31, 2018, at 4:21 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/31/2018 12:15 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
I noticed a curious inconsistency.
Some testcases (like gcc.dg/Wrestrict-4.c) have declarations like this:
void *alloca();
void* memcpy ();
Those don't g
> On Oct 31, 2018, at 4:21 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 10/31/2018 12:15 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> I noticed a curious inconsistency.
>>
>> Some testcases (like gcc.dg/Wrestrict-4.c) have declarations like this:
>>
>> void *alloca();
>> void* memcpy ();
>>
>> Those don't generate warnings
On 10/31/2018 12:15 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
I noticed a curious inconsistency.
Some testcases (like gcc.dg/Wrestrict-4.c) have declarations like this:
void *alloca();
void* memcpy ();
Those don't generate warnings in a just built V9.0 gcc for x86. And the
testcase clearly doesn't expect warni
I noticed a curious inconsistency.
Some testcases (like gcc.dg/Wrestrict-4.c) have declarations like this:
void *alloca();
void* memcpy ();
Those don't generate warnings in a just built V9.0 gcc for x86. And the
testcase clearly doesn't expect warnings.
But I do get a warning (warning: confli
