Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:35:24 +0100
From: Frank Dittrich <>
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 <> 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)


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.