Bug#231972: Has a decision been made on this?
At Mon, 17 May 2004 21:01:28 -0400,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:03:44AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > At Mon, 17 May 2004 14:03:30 -0400,
> > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 02:17:53AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > > > I also fully agreed. The latest kernel uses __STRICT_ANSI__ in only
> > > > types.h and byteorder.h for each architecture. But there are a lot of
> > > > __s64 and __u64 use without __STRICT_ANSI__ ifdefs in the kernel
> > > > headers even if that clause is excluded from __KERNEL__. This means
> > > > that we don't care about this problem. And nowadays we're moving
> > > > standard to ISO C99, and that includes "long long".
> > > >
> > > > The only remained problem is: the default standard of gcc 3.3 is not
> > > > ISO C99. But "long long" works with even gcc 2.95.3 (which is at
> > > > least required for kernel 2.6 compilation). So it's not exact
> > > > problem.
> > > >
> > > > Attached patch removes all __STRICT_ANSI__ from the latest kernel
> > > > 2.6.6 and today's bk. I'll ask it to lkml and put this patch into lkh
> > > > cvs, if you have no objection.
> > >
> > > Have you tried building lkh with this patch? The included testsuite
> > > will fail unless I'm very confused. If you remove the __STRICT_ANSI__,
> > > you will need to add strategic uses of __extension__.
> > Of course I built it. Could you show me your build log?
> I hadn't tried it, but now I have. "-ansi -pedantic" causes "long
> long" to warn, so this shouldn't work.
> I just tried it; the patch didn't apply because of a conflict in
> asm-parisc/byteorder.h. After fixing that the testsuite failed. Note
> that the testsuite is not run during debian/rules build, only during
> debian/rules binary; there's a bug filed on CDBS about the reason why.
Thanks for your testing. ...uhm, I don't notice about this. Sorry!
Should we drop this patch instead of fixing this bug?