On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 05:23:04PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So now we have a *third* semantic of "extern inline", and one that
> seems to be entirely inappropriate to *ever* be used in a header file
> due to duplicate symbol problems. What a mess.
>
> Maybe we should just specify "gnu89"
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
>> AndrewP, mind explaing the other difference you mentioned (ie wrt
>> "extern inline")? I thought we had already long since ended up
>> following the gcc semantics (ie use "static inline" if we don't have
>> an external version somehwre),
On 10/19/2014 07:49 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
> wrote:
>> >
>> > IIUC, it's nothing to do with volatile. C11 and above reads
>> >
>> > (rwlock_t) { .raw_lock = { 0 }, }
>> >
>> > as compound literal (which is not constant) rather than
On 10/19/2014 04:05 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > gcc5 changes the default standard to c11, rather than gnu89, which
>> > makes kernel build unhappy.
> Hmm. Just how unhappy does it make it? Maybe we can instead try to
> make the build
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
wrote:
>
> IIUC, it's nothing to do with volatile. C11 and above reads
>
> (rwlock_t) { .raw_lock = { 0 }, }
>
> as compound literal (which is not constant) rather than constant
> initalizer plus a cast.
Ahh. I thought it was the
> On Oct 19, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
>>
>> Here's one example how it fails:
>> http://marc.info/?l=gcc=141349914632010=2
>
> Ok, that just looks like a gnu11 bug, then. Not being able to
> initialize structures
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 02:21:24AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> s/C11/C99/
>
> >
> > (rwlock_t) { .raw_lock = { 0 }, }
> >
> > as compound literal (which is not constant) rather than constant
> > initalizer plus a cast.
>
> In some places we can just drop the cast, but it doesn't
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 02:10:31AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 04:05:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's one example how it fails:
> > > http://marc.info/?l=gcc=141349914632010=2
> >
> >
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 02:10:31AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 04:05:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's one example how it fails:
> > > http://marc.info/?l=gcc=141349914632010=2
> >
> >
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 04:05:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> >
> > Here's one example how it fails:
> > http://marc.info/?l=gcc=141349914632010=2
>
> Ok, that just looks like a gnu11 bug, then. Not being able to
> initialize
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
>
> Here's one example how it fails: http://marc.info/?l=gcc=141349914632010=2
Ok, that just looks like a gnu11 bug, then. Not being able to
initialize structures because some sub-structure has a volatile member
is just pure BS.
Has anybody
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:07:42PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> gcc5 changes the default standard to c11, rather than gnu89, which
> makes kernel build unhappy.
>
> Explicitly define the kernel standard to be gnu89 which should
> keep everything working exactly like it was before gcc5.
>
>
On Sun, 2014-10-19 at 13:46 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Oct 19, o2014 1:24 PM, "Joe Perches" wrote:
> >
> > I think it'd be moderately painful.
> >
> > There are ~1000 uses of variables like " new" in the kernel.
>
> So? That's not a C11 violation last I saw. The whole "new" keyword is
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 01:05:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > gcc5 changes the default standard to c11, rather than gnu89, which
> > makes kernel build unhappy.
(I guess the default will be gnu11 instead of c11.)
> Hmm. Just how
On Sun, 2014-10-19 at 13:05 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > gcc5 changes the default standard to c11, rather than gnu89, which
> > makes kernel build unhappy.
>
> Hmm. Just how unhappy does it make it? Maybe we can instead try to
> make the
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> gcc5 changes the default standard to c11, rather than gnu89, which
> makes kernel build unhappy.
Hmm. Just how unhappy does it make it? Maybe we can instead try to
make the build happier with some minimal changes? Or is it really
painful?
gcc5 changes the default standard to c11, rather than gnu89, which
makes kernel build unhappy.
Explicitly define the kernel standard to be gnu89 which should
keep everything working exactly like it was before gcc5.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
---
Makefile |3 ++-
1 file changed, 2
gcc5 changes the default standard to c11, rather than gnu89, which
makes kernel build unhappy.
Explicitly define the kernel standard to be gnu89 which should
keep everything working exactly like it was before gcc5.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com
---
Makefile |3 ++-
1
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
gcc5 changes the default standard to c11, rather than gnu89, which
makes kernel build unhappy.
Hmm. Just how unhappy does it make it? Maybe we can instead try to
make the build happier with some minimal changes? Or is it
On Sun, 2014-10-19 at 13:05 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
gcc5 changes the default standard to c11, rather than gnu89, which
makes kernel build unhappy.
Hmm. Just how unhappy does it make it? Maybe we can instead try
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 01:05:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
gcc5 changes the default standard to c11, rather than gnu89, which
makes kernel build unhappy.
(I guess the default will be gnu11 instead of c11.)
On Sun, 2014-10-19 at 13:46 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Oct 19, o2014 1:24 PM, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
I think it'd be moderately painful.
There are ~1000 uses of variables like some_type new in the kernel.
So? That's not a C11 violation last I saw. The whole new
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:07:42PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
gcc5 changes the default standard to c11, rather than gnu89, which
makes kernel build unhappy.
Explicitly define the kernel standard to be gnu89 which should
keep everything working exactly like it was before gcc5.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi wrote:
Here's one example how it fails: http://marc.info/?l=gccm=141349914632010w=2
Ok, that just looks like a gnu11 bug, then. Not being able to
initialize structures because some sub-structure has a volatile member
is just
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 04:05:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi wrote:
Here's one example how it fails:
http://marc.info/?l=gccm=141349914632010w=2
Ok, that just looks like a gnu11 bug, then. Not being able to
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 02:10:31AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 04:05:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi wrote:
Here's one example how it fails:
http://marc.info/?l=gccm=141349914632010w=2
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 02:10:31AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 04:05:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi wrote:
Here's one example how it fails:
http://marc.info/?l=gccm=141349914632010w=2
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 02:21:24AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
s/C11/C99/
(rwlock_t) { .raw_lock = { 0 }, }
as compound literal (which is not constant) rather than constant
initalizer plus a cast.
In some places we can just drop the cast, but it doesn't work everywhere.
On Oct 19, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi wrote:
Here's one example how it fails:
http://marc.info/?l=gccm=141349914632010w=2
Ok, that just looks like a gnu11 bug, then. Not
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
kir...@shutemov.name wrote:
IIUC, it's nothing to do with volatile. C11 and above reads
(rwlock_t) { .raw_lock = { 0 }, }
as compound literal (which is not constant) rather than constant
initalizer plus a cast.
Ahh. I thought it
On 10/19/2014 04:05 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
gcc5 changes the default standard to c11, rather than gnu89, which
makes kernel build unhappy.
Hmm. Just how unhappy does it make it? Maybe we can instead try to
make the
On 10/19/2014 07:49 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
kir...@shutemov.name wrote:
IIUC, it's nothing to do with volatile. C11 and above reads
(rwlock_t) { .raw_lock = { 0 }, }
as compound literal (which is not constant) rather than
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
AndrewP, mind explaing the other difference you mentioned (ie wrt
extern inline)? I thought we had already long since ended up
following the gcc semantics (ie use static inline if we don't have
an external version
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 05:23:04PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
So now we have a *third* semantic of extern inline, and one that
seems to be entirely inappropriate to *ever* be used in a header file
due to duplicate symbol problems. What a mess.
Maybe we should just specify gnu89 to avoid
34 matches
Mail list logo
