Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 14:46:40 -0800 From: Ngie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r314862 - head/sys/modules/qlxgbe Message-ID: <ADE94DFD-14DD-450F-9DA9-62CBEBF45CBB@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20170308223908.GR1044@FreeBSD.org> References: <201703071543.v27FhnoL024242@repo.freebsd.org> <20170307221733.GN1044@FreeBSD.org> <70fcdcf4-cfa5-2382-ea60-55ac1a91e06b@FreeBSD.org> <20170308215514.GQ1044@FreeBSD.org> <B73C6E5C-75EA-4871-AAEC-FFA5049C5344@gmail.com> <20170308223908.GR1044@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 14:39, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:57:32PM -0800, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote:= > N> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:00:30AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > N> > A> On 08/03/2017 00:17, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > N> > A> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:43:49PM +0000, Andriy Gapon wrote: > N> > A> > A> Author: avg > N> > A> > A> Date: Tue Mar 7 15:43:49 2017 > N> > A> > A> New Revision: 314862 > N> > A> > A> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/314862 > N> > A> > A> > N> > A> > A> Log: > N> > A> > A> qlxgbe: add GCC_MS_EXTENSIONS to CFLAGS to make old base GC= C happy > N> > A> > A> > N> > A> > A> The module uses unnamed structure and union fields and base= GCC in > N> > A> > A> stable/10 doesn't like it. > N> > A> > A> I think that that is a C11 feature, so it is courteous of m= ore modern > N> > A> > A> compilers to not complain about it when compiling in C99 mo= de. > N> > A> > > N> > A> > There are a lot of code in kernel, that uses anonymous structs a= nd unions. > N> > A> > This feature is enabled globally. Why does this module need spec= ial treatment? > N> > A> > N> > A> That's a good question and I don't have a good answer to it. > N> > A> All I can say is that a GCC build of GENERIC and modules failed in= that fashion > N> > A> only for this module (in stable/10). > N> > A> Maybe I described the problem incorrectly. Then, a proper explana= tion is welcome. > N> >=20 > N> > In head this is fixed properly: > N> >=20 > N> > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=3Drevision&revision=3D278913 > N> >=20 > N> > Can you please move your fix to stable/10 and revert it in head? > N>=20 > N> I understand there might be conflicts, but wouldn=81ft it be better to r= evert and MFC the change you committed to ^/head (which is already in ^/stab= le/11) to ^/stable/10? >=20 > Could be. But I intentionally avoided MFCing it back in 2015, in my humble= > opinion changing global compilation flags is something not for a stable > branch. I defintely won't go for it, but anybody else welcome :) Looking at the number of changed makefilea/drivers again, I agree with your d= iscretion, but I do wonder if some of the failures on ^/stable/10 are caused= by this lack of support (on 2nd tier platforms like arm). It makes it ever s= o important for people backporting changes to be careful... Also, any changes avg@ makes should be backported to ^/stable9 because the d= river was backported there (and because clang isn't in the source tree there= IIRC -- I don't remember exactly since I haven't used 9.x for 6+ months). Thanks, -Ngie=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ADE94DFD-14DD-450F-9DA9-62CBEBF45CBB>