Re: Consistency of function attributes between prototype and definition

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 11:43:02AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 11:40 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 11:20:20AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> On 10/02/2015 09:37 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 01:25:31PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>>> glibc has a preprocessor macro called internal_function which switches
> >>>> to a different calling convention on certain targets (i386 uses stdcall
> >>>> and regparams).  For non-K&R function definitions, the compiler enforces
> >>>> that both the prototype declaration and the definition match.
> >>>>
> >>>> When someone writes a patch on a different architecture than i386 and
> >>>> forgets to specify internal_function on both prototype and definition,
> >>>> the build will pass, even though i386 will not compile.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there a way to use a certain harmless attribute to detect this
> >>>> mismatch even on architectures where internal_function has no effect?
> >>>
> >>> Maybe aligned(1) will do what you want?
> >>
> >> Interesting idea.  Would this alter generated code?
> > 
> > It shouldn't -- it can only increase alignment (not decrease it).
> 
> Why do you think that?

Because the documentation says so.  Maybe it is wrong though, I didn't
test it.  If so, please file a bug.


Segher



[Index of Archives]     [Linux C Programming]     [Linux Kernel]     [eCos]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Announce]     [Autoconf]     [The DWARVES Debugging Tools]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux GCC]

  Powered by Linux