* Re: fix conflict with gcc thread local storage extension
[not found] ` <20030320161358.0240A7884D@deneb.localdomain>
@ 2003-03-20 18:31 ` Jonathan Larmour
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Jonathan Larmour @ 2003-03-20 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Salter; +Cc: eCos Maintainers, ecos-patches
Mark Salter wrote:
>>>>>>Gary Thomas writes:
>
>
>>On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 09:07, Mark Salter wrote:
>>
>>>Index: compat/posix/current/ChangeLog
>>>===================================================================
>>>RCS file: /cvs/ecos/ecos/packages/compat/posix/current/ChangeLog,v
>>>retrieving revision 1.43
>>>diff -u -p -5 -r1.43 ChangeLog
>>>--- compat/posix/current/ChangeLog 19 Mar 2003 14:17:20 -0000 1.43
>>>+++ compat/posix/current/ChangeLog 20 Mar 2003 16:05:01 -0000
>>>@@ -1,5 +1,10 @@
>>>+2003-03-20 Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>
>>>+
>>>+ * include/pthread.h: Avoid conflict with recently introduced gcc
>>>+ __thread keyword.
>>>+
>
>
>>Wasn't that sweet of them? What version does this show up in?
>
> I'm seeing it in a 3.3 variant. I think it went into CVS around
> the December time frame.
Ouch. I wish they'd realise that they can't just add commonly occurring
words to the namespace and think they can get away with it just because
it's got "__" prepended, when it means many OS's will have to suffer.
This should go in the 2.0 branch too (maintainer list CC'd). The
alternative is that upcoming GCC 3.3 will barf on eCos 2.0. This is also
obviously a trivially benign change.
Jifl
--
eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread