Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:35:24 +0100 From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: clang build error (was: New compiler warnings) On 01/15/2013 11:05 PM, magnum wrote: > On 15 Jan, 2013, at 22:29 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote: >> Solar, >> >> Frank pointed out that the following will mute the inline warnings: >> >> -#define MAYBE_INLINE attribute((always_inline)) >> +#define MAYBE_INLINE attribute((always_inline)) inline >> >> Should we commit this? I don't really understand the difference. > > I did so. Some googling reveals this is a better definition anyway, since at least some compilers will totally ignore that attribute without the inline specification added. > > I also replaced a similar construct in dummy.c to MAYBE_INLINE, maybe you should in core too. When I did that common.h change (MAYBE_INLINE definition), I got a build error for the linux-x86-64-clang make target. clang 3.1 claims to be compatible with gcc 4.2.1. So may be we can only add inline to that definition for __GNUC__ > 4 || __GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 7) Frank
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.