From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Aug  1 08:00:37 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA7337B404
	for <freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org>;
	Fri,  1 Aug 2003 08:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 113BC43FBD
	for <freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org>;
	Fri,  1 Aug 2003 08:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h71F0aUp048016
	for <freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h71F0aNX048015;
	Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200308011500.h71F0aNX048015@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Subject: Re: i386/41930: declaration clash for ffs() and ${CXX}
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:00:38 -0000

The following reply was made to PR i386/41930; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To: Steve Roome <stephen_roome@pepcross.com>
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: i386/41930: declaration clash for ffs() and ${CXX}
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 00:57:36 +1000 (EST)

 On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Steve Roome wrote:
 
 >  Just noticed that on 4.8-STABLE I get a similar effect compiling code
 >  with -ansi. Which is similar, possibly slightly different, but adds
 >  weight for the argument for fixing the ffs() code.
 >
 >  - Example Code ---------------------------------------------------------
 >
 >  #include <string.h>
 >  #include <machine/console.h>
 >  #include <vgl.h>
 >  int main() { return 1; }
 >
 >  - Example Compiler Output ----------------------------------------------
 >
 >  gcc -ansi -Wall -Werror test.c
 >  cc1: warnings being treated as errors
 >  In file included from /usr/include/vgl.h:37,
 >                   from test.c:3:
 >  /usr/include/machine/cpufunc.h:118: warning: static declaration for `ffs' follows non-static
 >
 >  - End Example ----------------------------------------------------------
 
 This is from namespace pollution in <vgl.h> (it includes the kernel-only
 implementation-detail header <machine/cpufunc.h> and some standard headers).
 
 >  This "implementation detail" might be used by a programmer using C++
 >  or -ansi on a C program, surely it should work ?
 
 Only if the implementation exports its detail.  The implementation shouldn't
 do this gratuitously as in <vgl.h>.
 
 Bruce