From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-44108-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 17529 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2015 14:06:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 17402 invoked by uid 89); 19 Feb 2015 14:06:51 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:06:50 +0000
Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1JE6le5009206	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL)	for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:06:48 -0500
Received: from greed.delorie.com (ovpn-113-24.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.24])	by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1JE6khd022697	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO)	for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:06:47 -0500
Received: from greed.delorie.com (greed.delorie.com [127.0.0.1])	by greed.delorie.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1JE6kIc000858	for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:06:46 -0500
Received: (from dj@localhost)	by greed.delorie.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id t1JE6k4X000856;	Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:06:46 -0500
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:06:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201502191406.t1JE6k4X000856@greed.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
To: gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: sim vs c99
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2


clang defaults to c99 and gcc is moving towards it.

The simulator won't build with -std=c99, lots of these due to "extern
inline" using the c89 semantics:

libsim.a(sim-core.o): In function `sim_addr_range_hit_p':
binutils-gdb/sim/msp430/../common/sim-arange.c:290: multiple definition of `sim_addr_range_hit_p'
nrun.o:binutils-gdb/sim/msp430/../common/sim-arange.c:290: first defined here

Are there any plans to switch to C99 or at least detect/support a C99
environment?