https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10980
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
We have __builtin_va_arg_pack and __builtin_va_arg_pack_len which I think
solves this problem really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10980
Alejandro Colomar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||colomar.6.4.3 at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10980
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
09:54:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
I bet it just ignores the attribute that is not how the attribute is
supposed to work.
We
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10980
--- Comment #11 from Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com
2011-10-17 18:44:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
I bet it just ignores the attribute that is not how the attribute is
supposed to work.
We output error in this case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10980
Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10980
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-09-23 13:40:55 UTC
---
This problem popped up when compiling LLVM's libc++:
M:\Development\Source\libc++\src\locale.cpp:1:0: warning: -fPIC ignored for
target (all code is position
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10980
--- Comment #9 from Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com
2011-09-23 13:46:27 UTC ---
Current Clang compiled everything without a hitch. It might ignore the
attribute, I haven't checked. Perhaps this error should be made a warning?
I bet it just ignores the attribute that is not how the attribute is
supposed to work.
We output error in this case intentionally (and warning in at the same
spot if function is declared inline and -Winline is given).
Functions marked always_inlined really ought to be always inlined and
attribute
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10980
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-09-23 14:10:53
UTC ---
I bet it just ignores the attribute that is not how the attribute is
supposed to work.
We output error in this case intentionally (and warning in at the same
spot
