Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/02/10/09:26:11
> > ../../../../include/libc/fsexthlp.h:32: warning: inline declaration ignored
> > for function with `...' (do we really need inline?)
> We could leave it to the compiler to inline it, as it sees fit.
> <libc/fd_props.h> has a bunch of inline functions, which are defined as inline
> using "__inline__" rather than "inline", so perhaps <libc/fsexthlp.h> should
> use "__inline__" too.
Could try it. It's just a warning, and only in compiling the library,
so we could leave it. (You have to edit gcc.opt anyway since some of
the new switches aren't supported by older GCC).
> > ../../../../include/stdint.h:27: parse error before `__extension__'
> > ../../../../include/stdint.h:37: parse error before `__extension__'
> "__extension__" is just a way of ignoring errors when -pedantic is used.
And I looked at this for a few minutes - and it looks like a gcc 184.108.40.206
bug. It works with __extension__ in other contexts during compiling,
but for some reason it just won't take this one. #defining it away
makes it compile.
> I don't know why we use "__extension__" in <stdint.h>. gcc supports long long,
> so we have to provide *int64_*t. See C99, section 220.127.116.11: "Exact-width
> integer types", which is about *int<n>_*t:
> "These types are optional. However, if an implementation provides integer
> types with widths of 8, 16, 32, or 64 bits, it shall define the corresponding
> typedef names."
> I suppose gcc 18.104.22.168 may support 64-bit integers. It's been so long since I
> used that version, that I can't remember. ;) If it does support 64-bit
> integers, then we can remove "__extension__".
It does support them, so it's just a matter of deciding what to do - but
I'm busy this week. When I get a chance.
- Raw text -