On 2/14/20 11:30 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[snip]
Attached
is the updated revision that I plan to commit unless you (or anyone
else) have further suggestions.
This version is OK to commit.
-Sandra
On 2/13/20 3:55 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 2/5/20 1:13 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
index ec99c38a607..3634ce1c423 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
@@ -2557,8 +2557,11 @@ __attribute__ ((access (write_only, 1, 2),
On 2/5/20 1:13 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
index ec99c38a607..3634ce1c423 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
@@ -2557,8 +2557,11 @@ __attribute__ ((access (write_only, 1, 2), access
(read_write, 3))) int fgets (c
@ite
On 2/4/20 6:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
GCC diagnoses declarations of function aliases whose type doesn't
match that of the target (ditto for attribute weakref). It doesn't
yet diagnose such incompatbilities for variable aliases but that's
just an oversight that I will try to remember to correct
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg00290.html
On 2/5/20 1:13 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/4/20 6:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
GCC diagnoses declarations of function aliases whose type doesn't
match that of the target (ditto for attribute weakref). It doesn't
yet diagnose such in
On 2/4/20 6:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
GCC diagnoses declarations of function aliases whose type doesn't
match that of the target (ditto for attribute weakref). It doesn't
yet diagnose such incompatbilities for variable aliases but that's
just an oversight that I will try to remember to correct
GCC diagnoses declarations of function aliases whose type doesn't
match that of the target (ditto for attribute weakref). It doesn't
yet diagnose such incompatbilities for variable aliases but that's
just an oversight that I will try to remember to correct in GCC 11.
The attached patch updates th
