[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:26:09 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] GCC release 8 support for gcc-plugins
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:56 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 12:34:38PM -0500, valdis.kletnieks@...edu wrote:
>> For reasons totally beyond my understanding, gcc 8 changed the
>> order of two structure member, which leads to an error:
>
> I'm a little late on this, but isn't the whole point of C99 initializers
> that field order should not matter at all?
For C99, this is true. The plugins are built differently and follow
C++ conventions, which, for reasons I cannot understand, are ordered.
:( Regardless, the fix actually results in fewer lines of code, so
this is fine.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
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.
