Your message dated Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:06:38 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#194242: acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#194242: drivers/atm/ambassador.c:301:21: pasting "." and "start" does not give a valid preprocessing token) has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -------------------------------------- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 22 May 2003 01:27:29 +0000 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed May 21 20:27:28 2003 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from cs2416782-24.houston.rr.com (crustytoothpaste.ath.cx) [24.167.82.24] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 19Ierf-0008Jo-00; Wed, 21 May 2003 20:27:28 -0500 Received: from stonewall (unknown [192.168.2.250]) by crustytoothpaste.ath.cx (Postfix) with SMTP id 199557BC28; Thu, 22 May 2003 01:27:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by stonewall (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 22 May 2003 01:27:26 +0000 Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 01:27:26 +0000 From: "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: drivers/atm/ambassador.c:301:21: pasting "." and "start" does not give a valid preprocessing token Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu" Content-Disposition: inline X-Reportbug-Version: 2.10.1 X-Operating-System: Linux stonewall 2.4.20-1-k7 Content-Conversion: prohibited X-Request-PGP: finger://[EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-18.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_30,HAS_PACKAGE,PGP_SIGNATURE_2,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_20 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_20 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) --sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Package: kernel-source-2.5.69 Version: 2.5.69-1 Severity: normal When I try to build kernel-source-2.5.69 with kernel-package, I get the following message: gcc -Wp,-MD,drivers/atm/.ambassador.o.d -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude -Wall -Wst= rict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -pipe -= mpreferred-stack-boundary=3D2 -march=3Dathlon -Iinclude/asm-i386/mach-defau= lt -nostdinc -iwithprefix include -DMODULE -DKBUILD_BASENAME=3Dambassador= -DKBUILD_MODNAME=3Dambassador -c -o drivers/atm/.tmp_ambassador.o drivers/= atm/ambassador.c drivers/atm/ambassador.c:301:21: pasting "." and "start" does not give a va= lid preprocessing token drivers/atm/ambassador.c:305:23: pasting "." and "regions" does not give a = valid preprocessing token drivers/atm/ambassador.c:310:20: pasting "." and "data" does not give a val= id preprocessing token make[3]: *** [drivers/atm/ambassador.o] Error 1 make[2]: *** [drivers/atm] Error 2 make[1]: *** [drivers] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/kernel-source-2.5.69' make: *** [stamp-build] Error 2 I understood that this was supposed to be changed from a warning to a error sometime soon; I just didn't realize it was *so* soon. If you need the .config or anything else, let me know. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux stonewall 2.4.20-1-k7 #1 Sat Mar 22 15:17:52 EST 2003 i686 Locale: LANG=3Den_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=3Den_US.UTF-8 Versions of packages kernel-source-2.5.69 depends on: ii binutils 2.14.90.0.2-0.1 The GNU assembler, linker and = bina ii bzip2 1.0.2-1 A high-quality block-sorting f= ile=20 ii coreutils [fileutils] 5.0-3 The GNU core utilities ii fileutils 5.0-3 The GNU file management utilit= ies=20 -- no debconf information --=20 Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7 "Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all." --Douglas Adams --sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Ubi libertas, ibi patria. iQFKBAEBAwA0BQI+zCd+LRpodHRwOi8vZGVjb3kud294Lm9yZy9+Ym1jL29wZW5w Z3AvcG9saWN5LnRleAAKCRDlkf/JVgVT5xPYB/9XZChBsbLg8UM8M1SCWE2N294N kaM20gDxZsECCjSfPZCmocaQQJSVKQTjRZUjaUsuCm/i7xM92gDzJhuYn6q2xiXJ NcgJUD5oZSfFXPNBw5Y0+Ni09qgNkmKBKqa3Z+Ud5LS1SY8h5adKMWRm+X2H56r1 BhKtdHm4ZVM5CCwtv9ddYeBgOR/XHnhq0eNucClGSNAeEGUFo8dNcTh8sj/xoPs/ Od6XtxdbJT93z29FEhYS/0z27Gg+BTr8Ep/S3Bz1zOn48M4Lvio4N7+dv86A1Yhj kpsW7V+DVzgJkexEULHaQFXLKnh1AeC6LRw6fkIuKfl0sSMGjfq8qbsYJOqg =fzhE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Signature policy: http://decoy.wox.org/~bmc/openpgp/policy.tex --sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu-- --------------------------------------- Received: (at 194196-done) by bugs.debian.org; 1 Jun 2003 14:09:56 +0000 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 01 09:09:54 2003 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 19MTWy-0008Ck-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 09:09:52 -0500 Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [130.149.19.1]) by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA07479; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:06:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) id h51E6cC28935; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:06:38 +0200 (MEST) From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:06:38 +0200 To: Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#194242: acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#194242: drivers/atm/ambassador.c:301:21: pasting "." and "start" does not give a valid preprocessing token) In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-21.2 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_VM version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_24 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_24 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) Closing these reports. Please submit bugs against the various kernel source packages, either to fix the bug or to select a compiler, which still accepts this coding style. Segher Boessenkool writes: > Brian M. Carlson wrote: > >>The standard says this is undefined behaviour. The code never "worked", > >>but by pure accident produced the expected result. > > > > The compiler is *permitted* to make demons fly out of my nose, but if it > > did that, I'd file a bug on it asserting that it shouldn't do that > > either. Saying that the code never worked is at best, pedantic, and at > > worst, false. The code compiled with gcc 3.2 into an ELF relocatable and > > fails to do so with gcc 3.3. > > 3.2 (and some versions before it) warned that you shouldn't > rely on this working. Now, with 3.3, it indeed stopped working. > This is neither a surprise nor a problem. > > >>>If a .c file doesn't turn into a .o file, and it did with 3.2 [0], that's > >>>a regression, and therefore a bug. You can argue for all eternity > >> > >>Not if it isn't a valid C source file. > > > > Neither #warning nor #error are valid C syntax either. But I'm sure > > #error _is_ valid C syntax. > > > you'll find them in a great deal of C source files. Is it your > > contention that gcc should outright reject every file which does not > > comply with the C standard? > > No, but it sure can't be expected to accept every erroneous > construct and "do the right thing" with it, whatever that > may be. > > > And if so, which version of the C standard is that? > > The version that was specified on the command line, of course. > > > If not, what criteria are we to use to determine whether to > > reject files which have syntax errors? > > Every syntax error is a hard error. > > > Are you trying to convince me that it is a case of sheer stupidity? I > > don't think that's what's happening here. > > You're trying hard to suggest it is, though. > > > Segher > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]