Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:03:07 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: clang build error (was: New compiler warnings) On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Frank Dittrich wrote: > On 01/15/2013 11:05 PM, magnum wrote: > > On 15 Jan, 2013, at 22:29 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. OK, let's make this change. > > I also replaced a similar construct in dummy.c to MAYBE_INLINE, maybe you should in core too. It's already MAYBE_INLINE in dummy.c in core (for some months). > 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) That's bad news. What specific error message did clang give? Alexander
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.