saugustine added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36431#835165, @nemanjai wrote:
> This patch appears to be perfectly fine. However, it triggers a large number > of warnings. Namely, there's a large number of `warning: ISO C forbids an > empty translation unit [-Wpedantic]` warnings produced. What config are the buildbots using? I don't see these warnings in default or RELEASE style builds. I'm happy to fix them though. > The reason is that all the code in the file is wrapped with an `if > !_ARCH_PPC` macro. I assume that we do not want `compiler_rt` to expose > builtins that assume an 80-bit `long double` (which is the behaviour we get > now). So it seems to me that files that define such builtins should simply be > removed from the `powerpc64_SOURCES` and they should `#error` on PPC. I think it is better to mark plain powerpc (32) as unsupported in the testsuite, for similar reasons to marking powerpc64 unsupported. Whoever originally #ifdefed these did it in a way that is misleading. See the comments on https://reviews.llvm.org/D36249 for my reasoning. > Also, I'm getting lots of warnings from `compiler-rt/lib/builtins/atomic.c` > such as `warning: implicit declaration of function '__c11_atomic_fetch_or' > [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]`. It would appear that the `__c11_atomic_*` > family of builtins isn't exposed by the build compiler (and should presumably > be declared in a header if file is being built with a compiler that doesn't > expose those). What config do the buildbots use? I don't see these errors with DEBUG or RELEASE. I'm happy to fix them regardless, but I'd like to be able to anticipate these problems. https://reviews.llvm.org/D36431 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
