Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:56:03 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: src/bin/ed/re.c: warning: declaration of `exp' shadows a global declaration Message-ID: <20030723095336.G83041@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> In-Reply-To: <20030721101305.A35445@hub.freebsd.org> References: <7madbg60b1.wl@black.imgsrc.co.jp> <20030715075429.M34004@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20030721101305.A35445@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, David O'Brien wrote: DO>On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 07:59:43AM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote: DO>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Jun Kuriyama wrote: DO>> JK>With new gcc and -Wshadow, src/bin/ed/re.c shows this warning: DO>> JK> DO>> JK>cc -Wshadow -c re.c DO>> JK>re.c: In function `get_compiled_pattern': DO>> JK>re.c:44: warning: declaration of `exp' shadows a global declaration DO>> JK><built-in>:0: warning: shadowed declaration is here DO>> JK> DO>> JK>It seems local variable exp is conflicted with exp(3) declaration. I DO>> JK>don't know what name should be used... DO>> DO>> I would call this a compiler bug. It shouldn't declare exp(3) when you DO>> don't include math.h. As I understand the standard the names in math.h are DO>> only reserved when you include math.h. I remember that an earlier version DO>> of gcc had this bug, that was fixed then. Probably they unfixed it again. DO>> DO>> What's the chance of getting this fixed? DO> DO>There is a discussion on the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list, but DO>they are having a hard time agreeing there is a bug here. FreeBSD's GCC DO>problems have a better chance of getting fixed if those that experience DO>and understand the bug would participate in related discussions on the DO>GCC mailing lists. The Linux and Solaris community has no problem doing DO>this -- for some reason the BSD communities expects the poor guy doing DO>the GCC imports to be the single voice for BSD. :-( Well, I have subscribed. I red the messages in this thread and it seems, that there is more agreement that this needs to be fixed than people against it. I'm not familiar with the process in the gcc-community. Is there any action required? harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de, harti@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030723095336.G83041>