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.
cfe-commits mailing list