Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/09/20/05:49:35
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 07:32:04AM +1000, Danny Smith wrote:
> > why is then the information about the __declspec removed? Shouldn't
> > that information be kept? AFAIK, the "extern" storage class shouldn't
> > change any information already known about the variable in question.
> > It should complain about e.g. conflicting types but it should never
> > change what's already there.
>
> Overriding the attribute also prevents an ICE in gcc so I believe the
> behaviour is justified. There are actually testcases in the gcc
Well... I'm not quite sure if circumventing a potential compiler bug
actually justifies a potential misbehaviour...
> void __attribute__((dllimport)) Bar(void);
> void __attribute__((dllimport)) Baz(void);
> __attribute__((dllimport)) int Biz;
> __attribute__((dllimport)) int Boz;
>
> void Foo(void)
> {
> Bar();
> Baz();
> Biz++;
> Boz++;
> }
>
> void Bar(void)
> { // { dg-warning "defined" }
> }
>
> void Baz(void); // { dg-warning "redeclared" }
> extern int Biz; // { dg-warning "redeclared" }
> int Boz; // { dg-warning "defined" }
>
> void foo()
> {
> Biz++;
> }
The above case is imho somewhat borderline. It defines Biz with
dllimport, but it's missing an `extern'. What I mean is, having two
extern declarations, one with and the second without dllimport. The
second should not touch the already existing declaration. I don't
see why this should result in an ICE. The other cases in the testcase
are absolutely ok, though.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -