saugustine added a comment.

In, @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 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.

cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to