On Jan 18, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 18 January 2016 at 19:50, Programmingkid <programmingk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I tried what Peter Maydell did and here are the results:
>>
>> typedef __darwin_size_t size_t;
>>
>> char control[(((__darwin_size_t)((char *)(__darwin_size_t)(sizeof(struct
>> cmsghdr)) + (sizeof(__uint32_t) - 1)) &~ (sizeof(__uint32_t) - 1)) +
>> ((__darwin_size_t)((char *)(__darwin_size_t)(sizeof(int) * 16) +
>> (sizeof(__uint32_t) - 1)) &~ (sizeof(__uint32_t) - 1)))] = { 0 };
>>
>> It looks like the problem was actually with this part: = { 0 };
>
> No, the problem is that the compiler seems to think the bit in []
> is not compile time constant (the = { 0 } initializer syntax
> is valid if and only if it is compile-time-constant).
>
> Can you say what 'gcc --version' prints for you? That will
> tell us the clang version number, which is more interesting
> than what clang claims its gcc-compatibility is.
$ gcc-4.9 --version
gcc-4.9 (Homebrew gcc49 4.9.2_1) 4.9.2
Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> I'm leaning towards this being a compiler bug fixed in
> a later version of clang, because that [] expression looks
> like it should be constant to me, and it's constant as
> far as my clang version thinks.
A bug could be the case. I use gcc 4.9.2 to compile QEMU.
I don't use the clang compiler.
Just in case here is the info from Apple's clang compiler on
my system:
$ gcc --version
i686-apple-darwin10-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Based on Apple Inc. build 5658)
(LLVM build 2336.1.00)
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
