Thanks. I'm not sure if ODP has been tested in that environment. My guess is it's something simple. That assert is testing sizeof(cpu_set_t) and it sounds like that's different in Suse then, say, Ubuntu.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Marco Varlese <[email protected]> wrote: > OS: openSUSE Leap 42.2 > Compiler: gcc-6 > Kernel: 4.10.0-rc4-1.g4f824f1-default > > > Cheers, > Marco > > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 08:44 -0600, Bill Fischofer wrote: > > What environment are you running in (OS, compiler, service levels, etc.)? > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Marco Varlese <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > I've pulled latest code from the git repo and got into a compile-time > error. > > I followed the steps provided in the README file under > platform/linux-generic > which are: > ./bootstrap > ./configure > ./make > > Please, see below the output of the compilation. > > CC _fdserver.lo > CC _ishm.lo > CC _ishmphy.lo > CC odp_atomic.lo > CC odp_barrier.lo > CC odp_buffer.lo > CC odp_byteorder.lo > CC odp_classification.lo > CC odp_cpu.lo > CC odp_cpumask.lo > In file included from /usr/include/features.h:365:0, > from /usr/include/sched.h:22, > from odp_cpumask.c:9: > ./include/odp/api/debug.h:42:39: error: negative width in bit-field > '__error_if_negative' > #define ODP_STATIC_ASSERT(cond, msg) _Static_assert(cond, msg) > ^ > odp_cpumask.c:24:1: note: in expansion of macro 'ODP_STATIC_ASSERT' > ODP_STATIC_ASSERT(ODP_CPUMASK_SIZE >= CPU_SETSIZE, > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ./include/odp/api/debug.h:42:39: error: negative width in bit-field > '__error_if_negative' > #define ODP_STATIC_ASSERT(cond, msg) _Static_assert(cond, msg) > ^ > odp_cpumask.c:28:1: note: in expansion of macro 'ODP_STATIC_ASSERT' > ODP_STATIC_ASSERT(sizeof(odp_cpumask_t) >= sizeof(cpu_set_t), > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Makefile:906: recipe for target 'odp_cpumask.lo' failed > make[1]: *** [odp_cpumask.lo] Error 1 > > I've also tried to pull the MONARCH LTS branch but I get exactly the same > result. > > Any thoughts or help on this would be much appreciated. > > > Thanks, > Marco > > > >
