This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Dan Kegel wrote:
This sounds kind of like http://gcc.gnu.org/PR8307 Does Pete's workaround there help?
OK, I had /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/arm-elf/3.3/include/stdlib.h, which looked stingy. I also had /usr/local/arm-elf/include/stdlib.h, which looked generous, and matched newlib's stdlib (I couldn't find anything matching the in-use stdlib, which is worrisome). So I deleted the in-use stdlib, so gcc would find the newlib-matching-stdlib (farther down the search path, I checked), and it compiles without any warnings.
However, now I'm left with the worry that my toolchain is inconsistent or borked in some other way. And I still have the same warning, but between my own files. For example:
[dir] main.c foo.h foo.c [/dir]
[main.c] #include foo.h int main() { foo_func(); return 0; } [/main.c]
[foo.h] void foo_func(); [/foo.h]
[foo.c] void foo_func() {;} [/foo.c]
This will generate the same warning in main.c for foo_func. Am I being ignorant about how this modularity should be done? I always was more of an assembly programmer...
------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |