Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:12:40 +0100 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org> To: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r189824 - in head/contrib/gcc: . doc Message-ID: <20090315081240.GB39715@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200903141936.n2EJaDM5006130@svn.freebsd.org> References: <200903141936.n2EJaDM5006130@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 07:36:13PM +0000, David Schultz wrote: > Author: das > Date: Sat Mar 14 19:36:13 2009 > New Revision: 189824 > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/189824 > > Log: > Make gcc use C99 inline semantics in c99 and gnu99 mode. This was the > original intent, but the functionality wasn't implemented until after > gcc 4.2 was released. However, if you compiled a program that would > behave differently before and after this change, gcc 4.2 would have > warned you; hence, everything currently in the base system is > unaffected by this change. This patch also adds additional warnings > about certain inline function-related bogosity, e.g., using a > static non-const local variable in an inline function. > > These changes were merged from a snapshot of gcc mainline from March > 2007, prior to the GPLv3 switch. I then ran the regression test suite > from a more recent gcc snapshot and fixed the important bugs it found. > I also squelched the following warning unless -pedantic is specified: > > foo is static but used in inline function bar which is not static > > This is consistent with LLVM's behavior, but not consistent with gcc 4.3. thnx a lot for doing this! just a quick question - what is the fallback strategy for ports that will die on this? roman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090315081240.GB39715>