On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersm...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 04/24/13 10:00 PM, Keith Packard wrote: >> Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersm...@oracle.com> writes: >>> On 04/24/13 06:58 PM, Keith Packard wrote: >>>> >>>> Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersm...@oracle.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> This broke my build: >>>>> >>>>> Undefined first referenced >>>>> symbol in file >>>>> c2p_unsupported >>>>> ../../../miext/shadow/.libs/libshadow.a(shafb4.o) >>>> >>>> >>>> Builds fine with GCC; perhaps that figures out that this function can >>>> never be called? >>> >>> >>> If I build with gcc 4.7.2 with -O2 it indeed optimizes it out. >>> If I build with gcc 4.7.2 with -g and no -O flags, it fails the same >>> way.
Sorry, I forgot that unlike Linux kernel people, xorg people sometimes do compile without optimization. >> That makes sense at least. We could either make c2p_unsupported call >> FatalError or just be a no-op. Any preference? > > > I'd prefer at least a BUG_WARN() over a no-op, to give us a hint why > stuff isn't working, though FatalError() also works for something that > should be impossible to hit. Or assert(), or <insert xorg favorite runtime check method here>. This should be indeed impossible to hit, as all calls to the c2p functions use hardcoded parameters. I'm just a bit afraid that adding real error handling will slow down the code. Can it be dependent on DEBUG or so? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAMuHMdXvzq=cdm3oubyge4c5npr1vocinwcf6kdcrymo3do...@mail.gmail.com