Hi David,
On 06/19/15 12:16, David Chisnall wrote:
I only just caught this (having seen the fallout from NetBSD doing the same
thing in a shipping release and the pain that it’s caused):
__weak is a reserved keyword in Objective-C, please pick another name for this.
Should be fixed by
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 06/21/15 10:41, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 06/21/15 01:09, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
* ...
With the patch we would use:
__Noreturn void
foo(void) _dead2;
Which is still
On 06/21/15 01:09, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 06/19/15 12:23, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 17:02, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 19/06/2015 05:16 a.m., David Chisnall wrote:
I only just
On 06/21/15 10:41, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 06/21/15 01:09, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
* ...
With the patch we would use:
__Noreturn void
foo(void) _dead2;
Which is still ugly but C11-ish.
That asks for the
On 06/21/15 06:49, Oliver Pinter wrote:
...
Btw, is there anyone, who tries to compile the _recent_ head or
10-STABLE with gcc-4.x= ?
Sure, MIPS, powerpc and sparc64 still use gcc-4.2.1 so
every time we run a tinderbox it's tested. More recently
jenkins also runs builds with gcc-4.9.
On 06/21/15 09:44, Oliver Pinter wrote:
On 6/21/15, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 06/21/15 06:49, Oliver Pinter wrote:
...
Btw, is there anyone, who tries to compile the _recent_ head or
10-STABLE with gcc-4.x= ?
Sure, MIPS, powerpc and sparc64 still use gcc-4.2.1 so
every time
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 06/21/15 01:09, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
* ...
With the patch we would use:
__Noreturn void
foo(void) _dead2;
Which is still ugly but C11-ish.
That asks for the same problems as defining __weak.
Why not
Hi,
I don't think we should be worrying about what hypothetical downstream
users of freebsd are doing. If they want to actively ensure things are
backwards compatible for their needs, then they should step up and
actively fund + participate in development.
So if we're somehow /still/ supporting
On 6/21/15, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 06/21/15 06:49, Oliver Pinter wrote:
...
Btw, is there anyone, who tries to compile the _recent_ head or
10-STABLE with gcc-4.x= ?
Sure, MIPS, powerpc and sparc64 still use gcc-4.2.1 so
every time we run a tinderbox it's tested. More
On 6/21/15, Bruce Evans b...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 06/19/15 12:23, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 17:02, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 19/06/2015 05:16 a.m., David Chisnall wrote:
I
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Oliver Pinter
oliver.pin...@hardenedbsd.org wrote:
Yes, I known about gcc-4.2, but who uses older gcc than 4.0 (that's
why I wrote gcc-4.x = ) with recent HEAD (11-CURRENT) ?
Your running prose makes it sound like you are talking about gcc versions
older
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 09:35:58AM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
You have a point there: I tried to get the core team to at least
deprecate gcc = 2.8.1 and they didn't reach an agreement. :(
When was this?
mcl
___
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 06/21/15 11:48, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
...
Well, the fact this we just do this in the tree and no one has bothered to
clean the situation for older compilers just indicates that no one
*cares*
about older
Hi;
On 06/21/15 12:03, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi,
I don't think we should be worrying about what hypothetical downstream
users of freebsd are doing. If they want to actively ensure things are
backwards compatible for their needs, then they should step up and
actively fund + participate in
On 06/21/15 11:48, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 06/21/15 10:41, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 06/21/15 01:09, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
* ...
With the patch we would use:
__Noreturn
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 06/19/15 12:23, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 17:02, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 19/06/2015 05:16 a.m., David Chisnall wrote:
I only just caught this (having seen the fallout from
On 06/19/15 12:23, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 17:02, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 19/06/2015 05:16 a.m., David Chisnall wrote:
I only just caught this (having seen the fallout from NetBSD doing
the same thing in a shipping
On 06/19/15 14:54, David Chisnall wrote:
I definitely know of people building out-of-ports programs on FreeBSD whose
code you have just broken (including myself,
though I do Objective-C stuff on 10, so haven’t yet encountered the
breakage).
Hi David,
r268137 has been in 11-current for a
On 19 Jun 2015, at 14:41, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
On 06/19/15 14:54, David Chisnall wrote:
I definitely know of people building out-of-ports programs on FreeBSD whose
code you have just broken (including myself,
though I do Objective-C stuff on 10, so haven’t yet
On 19 Jun 2015, at 12:57, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
Hi,
Then they will get a compile error no matter what GNUstep’s Foundation.h
does. It can’t prevent cdefs.h from redefining __weak to be something
different.
Except #undef __weak”
Please read the example that I
On 06/19/15 12:16, David Chisnall wrote:
I only just caught this (having seen the fallout from NetBSD doing the same
thing in a shipping release and the pain that it’s caused):
__weak is a reserved keyword in Objective-C, please pick another name for this.
This in cdefs.h makes it impossible
On 06/19/15 13:42, David Chisnall wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 11:45, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
Appearently this will be fixed in GNUSTEP base:
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/sys/cdefs_elf.h?only_with_tag=MAIN
Is this still an issue?
It is impossible to fix it
I only just caught this (having seen the fallout from NetBSD doing the same
thing in a shipping release and the pain that it’s caused):
__weak is a reserved keyword in Objective-C, please pick another name for this.
This in cdefs.h makes it impossible to include any FreeBSD standard headers in
On 19 Jun 2015, at 11:45, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote:
Appearently this will be fixed in GNUSTEP base:
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/sys/cdefs_elf.h?only_with_tag=MAIN
Is this still an issue?
It is impossible to fix it in GNUstep Base, because we can’t
Hello;
Closely related to this, we are redefining _Noreturn, which is a
reserved keyword in C11.
Not sure what effect that mess causes.
Pedro.
On 19/06/2015 05:16 a.m., David Chisnall wrote:
I only just caught this (having seen the fallout from NetBSD doing the same
thing in a shipping
On 06/19/15 16:22, David Chisnall wrote:
Right - can you explain why it is ending up in your ObjC code?
Because it’s in cdefs.h, which is included by*every single userspace C header*.
cdefs.h must work with all C-family languages.
David
Hi David,
My buildworld and buildkernel has just
2015-06-19 22:29 GMT+08:00 Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org:
On 06/19/15 16:22, David Chisnall wrote:
Right - can you explain why it is ending up in your ObjC code?
Because it’s in cdefs.h, which is included by*every single userspace C
header*. cdefs.h must work with all C-family
On 06/19/15 16:32, Marcelo Araujo wrote:
2015-06-19 22:29 GMT+08:00 Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org:
On 06/19/15 16:22, David Chisnall wrote:
Right - can you explain why it is ending up in your ObjC code?
Because it’s in cdefs.h, which is included by*every single userspace C
header*.
On 19 Jun 2015, at 15:32, Marcelo Araujo araujobsdp...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe would be a good idea run an 'exp run' with this patch? Just to double
check if any port will break, although after you rename, I don't believe it
will conflict anymore, however an 'exp run' would show you it.
On 06/19/15 11:24, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 17:02, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 19/06/2015 05:16 a.m., David Chisnall wrote:
I only just caught this (having seen the fallout from NetBSD doing the same
thing in a shipping release and the pain that it’s caused):
On 19 Jun 2015, at 17:02, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 19/06/2015 05:16 a.m., David Chisnall wrote:
I only just caught this (having seen the fallout from NetBSD doing the same
thing in a shipping release and the pain that it’s caused):
__weak is a reserved keyword in
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 03:22:49PM +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
NetBSD:
sys/cdefs_elf.h
#define __weak __attribute__((__weak__))
FreeBSD:
sys/cdefs.h
#define __weak __attribute__((__weak__))
NetBSD is the only system that I’m aware of that has actually shipped
this, and
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 17:02, Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 19/06/2015 05:16 a.m., David Chisnall wrote:
I only just caught this (having seen the fallout from NetBSD doing the same
thing in a shipping release and the pain that it???s
Author: hselasky
Date: Wed Jul 2 08:45:26 2014
New Revision: 268137
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/268137
Log:
Define a __weak macro for declaring symbols weak.
Modified:
head/sys/sys/cdefs.h
Modified: head/sys/sys/cdefs.h
34 matches
Mail list logo
