I just updated from CVS this AM, and am having type conflicts between the xfs .h and .c files on the type of kmem_zone. The .h file sez its: extern struct kmem_zone *<grump>; while the .c file sez i
I don't think that's valid. And at least gcc 3.2 doesn't complain.. In this case not, as the kmem_zone_t is an object opaque to it's user. Compare it to kmem_cache_t in þhe core Linux code
Yes, but 2.96 does. I'd think that several folks use 2.96, since that's the standard gcc from RH 7.2. Okay, point taken. Nevertheless, the types between the .c and .h files should be consistent, wha
Gcc '2.96' is a development snapshot. Even if redhat ships it it's by now ways official. No. Using structs in headers and typedefs in the actual source is very common, because you can use pointers to
Okay, one more try, and I'll admit defeat, and shut up: "Official" or not, many folks who use XFS will compile it with gcc 2.96, because that's the version they get by default. They must make the ch
Danny - FWIW, xfs compiles for me with no warnings, using gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-110) on today's CVS tree. -Eric -- Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/x
But it does work with redhat's latest release compilers (7.1/7.2 errata, 7.3). So please upgrade to those, older compilers are known to produce buggy code in combination with XFS anyway.
From my system, "rpm -qa | grep gcc" produces: gcc-2.96-108.7.2 granted, Eric says his is gcc-2.96-110.*, but I'm as uptodate as I know how to be. Am I missing something obvious? -- kernel, n.: A pa
I just updated from CVS this AM, and am having type conflicts between the xfs .h and .c files on the type of kmem_zone. The .h file sez its: extern struct kmem_zone *<grump>; while the .c file sez i
I don't think that's valid. And at least gcc 3.2 doesn't complain.. In this case not, as the kmem_zone_t is an object opaque to it's user. Compare it to kmem_cache_t in þhe core Linux code
Yes, but 2.96 does. I'd think that several folks use 2.96, since that's the standard gcc from RH 7.2. Okay, point taken. Nevertheless, the types between the .c and .h files should be consistent, wha
Gcc '2.96' is a development snapshot. Even if redhat ships it it's by now ways official. No. Using structs in headers and typedefs in the actual source is very common, because you can use pointers to
Okay, one more try, and I'll admit defeat, and shut up: "Official" or not, many folks who use XFS will compile it with gcc 2.96, because that's the version they get by default. They must make the ch
Danny - FWIW, xfs compiles for me with no warnings, using gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-110) on today's CVS tree. -Eric -- Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/x
But it does work with redhat's latest release compilers (7.1/7.2 errata, 7.3). So please upgrade to those, older compilers are known to produce buggy code in combination with XFS anyway.
From my system, "rpm -qa | grep gcc" produces: gcc-2.96-108.7.2 granted, Eric says his is gcc-2.96-110.*, but I'm as uptodate as I know how to be. Am I missing something obvious? -- kernel, n.: A pa