[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: calc.at workaround for current test failures
From: |
Kaveh R. Ghazi |
Subject: |
Re: calc.at workaround for current test failures |
Date: |
Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:55:28 -0400 (EDT) |
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
>
> Frank Heckenbach <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Anyway, is there a problem with making that change?
>
> I'd rather not make a change because GCC has an inaccurate warning.
> We should fix GCC's warnings instead.
>
> I'll CC: this messaage to Kaveh R. Ghazi, since he's the one who made
> that change to GCC (logged in
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-07/msg00267.html>).
>
> Kaveh, here's some context:
>
> http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2003-07/msg00013.html
>
> I am worried that GCC is diagnosing more than it should. Did you
> check whether traditional C rejected "struct s a = b;"? I know that
> it rejected "struct s a = { x, y};" but I don't recall that it
> rejected "struct s a = b;". Nobody in the Bison group has an old PCC
> compiler to test with, so we can't verify this ourselves.
Sorry, I no longer have access to any K&R cc systems.
When I did have a K&R cc, it was primarily SunOS4 cc. I also saw
reports from hpux cc users and used some of those to determine what
warnings to add. I seem to recall that one or both of these compilers
rejected both "struct s a = { x, y};" and the "struct s a = b;" form.
Rather than rely purely on my memory, I scanned through the GCC
ChangeLogs prior to July 2000 when I installed the new -Wtraditional
warning. I looked for fixes of automatic aggregate initialization
which should have been inspired by actual old compilers rather than my
warning patch.
I found this from November 1999:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-11n/msg00777.html
It's actually "struct s a = func();", nevertheless it lends support to
the fact that the GCC warning is correct.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi address@hidden