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

Bug#453264: libc6-dev: fails to define ptrdiff_t in malloc.h



Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.7-2
Severity: serious
Justification: breaks other packages

The following test program:

---
#define _XOPEN_SOURCE
#include <wchar.h>
#include <malloc.h>
---

results in a compile-time error:

In file included from foo.c:3:
/usr/include/malloc.h:85: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘__size’
/usr/include/malloc.h:88: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘__size’

This is due to ptrdiff_t not being properly defined. This bug is causing swi-prolog to FTBFS (#453167). Also note that #defining _XOPEN_SOURCE to 400 (or any other number less than 500) works as well to trigger the bug, in case you have some philosophical objection to #defining it to an empty value.

Thank you for looking into this.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.23-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US.UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages libc6-dev depends on:
ii  li 2.7-2                                 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  li 2.6.23-1~experimental.1~snapshot.9737 Linux Kernel Headers for developme

Versions of packages libc6-dev recommends:
ii  gcc [c-compiler]          4:4.2.1-6      The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.1 [c-compiler]      4.1.2-17       The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.2 [c-compiler]      4.2.2-4        The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.3 [c-compiler]      4.3-20070902-1 The GNU C compiler

-- no debconf information

--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
a typesetting engine: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: