Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 12:55:57 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Conflicting declarations for ffs() Message-ID: <20021020195557.972FD2A88D@canning.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <20021020094608.F81582@espresso.q9media.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Barcroft wrote: > Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes: > > Take a look at: > > > > http://bento.freebsd.org/errorlogs/5-full/cqcam-0.91_1.log > > > > This port includes headers that declare the ffs() function twice: once > > with an inline version and once with a prototype. > > > > Is the bug in the application, or the headers? > > It looks like a bug in our headers. I don't see why this is a new bug > though. It looks like <string.h> (which <strings.h> used to include) > and i386's <machine/cpufunc.h> have been defining conflicting ffs() > prototypes since at least 1999. machine/cpufunc.h is really meant to be a kernel header and isn't really meant for consumption by userland. However, it is sortof useful. In this particular case, gcc provides a respectable builtin for ffs(). We probably shouldn't be overriding it for userland with our own inline for userland. Maybe it would just be better to stick a #ifdef _KERNEL around the inline version? That should leave gcc to use the builtin and fall back to the libc version if -fno-builtin is used [or if non-gcc is used]. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021020195557.972FD2A88D>