John Tytgat <[email protected]> wrote: > In message <[email protected]> > Jan-Jaap van der Geer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Should I commit this change? > Mmh, no as I can't believe this being a solution. The "extern > int _main (void);" declaration is not really needed as it is > defined in libunixlib/unix/unix.c and used only from assembler > (libunixlib/sys/_syslog.s) which doesn't require the C function > declaration.
OK, I will not commit then. > Aside: I thought the declaration removal can result in a compile > warning (or at least it used to happen with GCCSDK 3.4) because > of the compiler warning options we're (were?) using. I can't say I have been looking at the compiler output, so this might well be the case. > I don't want to hold a religous war on whether who is or can be > rightfully use _main so I'll rename _main to something else and > that will be more or less for sure a solution for you. But still > think UL can stick to _main ;-) That would be great. I also filed a bug for Vala, so hopefully something will happen eventually. I doubt that this will get a high priority though. Cheers, Jan-Jaap _______________________________________________ GCCSDK mailing list [email protected] Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
