[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130120110307.GA6673@openwall.com>
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.
