[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#215337: libc6-dev: redefines __attribute_used__



Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-3
Severity: normal

When building with gcc-2.95, I get the following error message:

  bmc@stonewall:/tmp% gcc-2.95 foo.c
  In file included from /usr/include/asm/sigcontext.h:4,
                   from /usr/include/bits/sigcontext.h:28,
                   from /usr/include/signal.h:326,
                   from /usr/include/sys/wait.h:30,
                   from foo.c:2:
  /usr/include/linux/compiler.h:56: warning: `__attribute_used__' 
  redefined
  /usr/include/sys/cdefs.h:195: warning: this is the location of the 
  previous definition

I have found that this occurs anytime one includes both unistd.h (which
includes, several files later, sys/cdefs.h) and sys/wait.h (which
includes linux/compiler.h). foo.c includes only these two headers and
returns 0.

This redefinition, which is ignored in newer gccs, is problematic in
2.95 because it causes building with -Werror to fail. The alternative is
special-casing code which uses both these headers, which is ugly and
inelegant.

I do not remember having this problem with 2.95 before my upgrade to
experimental, but I am not sure. It seems to only have occured in the
past few days, when I rebuilt a particular file that I was working on
with gcc 2.95 as a test.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux stonewall.crustytoothpaste.ath.cx 2.6.0-test4-1-386 #5 Thu Sep 4 21:30:10 EST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)

Versions of packages libc6-dev depends on:
ii  libc6                        2.3.2.ds1-3 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an

-- no debconf information


-- 
Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
 to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
 after all." --Douglas Adams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: