[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP241084CD1D1D3DD2B2E5332FD2D0@phx.gbl>
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.
