Hi!
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 10:03:36PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> When writing testcases for the previously posted patch, I have noticed
> that 3 of the headers aren't valid C89 (I didn't have any dg-options
> so -ansi -pedantic-errors was implied and these errors were reported).
Hrm. Do they
Hi!
When writing testcases for the previously posted patch, I have noticed
that 3 of the headers aren't valid C89 (I didn't have any dg-options
so -ansi -pedantic-errors was implied and these errors were reported).
The following patch fixes those, ok for trunk?
Note, as can be seen even in this
