* gcc-4_2-branch: tiny issue with libiberty
@ 2007-11-13 8:42 Thomas Schwinge
2007-11-13 9:25 ` DJ Delorie
2007-11-19 10:06 ` Ben Elliston
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2007-11-13 8:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 672 bytes --]
Hello!
On a build of the gcc-4_2-branch I noticed a tiny problem with libiberty,
which the following patch fixes. Could this please be applied to
gcc-4_2-branch and trunk?
#v+
2007-11-13 Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge@gnu.org>
* strsignal.c (psignal): Adjust parameters to the declaration.
Index: strsignal.c
===================================================================
--- strsignal.c (Revision 130085)
+++ strsignal.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -549,7 +549,7 @@
#ifndef HAVE_PSIGNAL
void
-psignal (unsigned signo, char *message)
+psignal (int signo, const char *message)
{
if (signal_names == NULL)
{
#v-
Regards,
Thomas
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc-4_2-branch: tiny issue with libiberty
2007-11-13 8:42 gcc-4_2-branch: tiny issue with libiberty Thomas Schwinge
@ 2007-11-13 9:25 ` DJ Delorie
2007-11-13 14:02 ` Thomas Schwinge
2007-11-19 10:06 ` Ben Elliston
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2007-11-13 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tschwinge; +Cc: gcc-patches
> * strsignal.c (psignal): Adjust parameters to the declaration.
Which declaration?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc-4_2-branch: tiny issue with libiberty
2007-11-13 9:25 ` DJ Delorie
@ 2007-11-13 14:02 ` Thomas Schwinge
2007-11-13 14:37 ` DJ Delorie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2007-11-13 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1622 bytes --]
Hello!
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 09:16:21PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > * strsignal.c (psignal): Adjust parameters to the declaration.
>
> Which declaration?
OK, that ChangeLog comment was not the best one possible, I agree...
#v+
$ info libc Signal\ Messages
[...]
-- Function: void psignal (int SIGNUM, const char *MESSAGE)
[...]
This function is a BSD feature, declared in the header file
`signal.h'.
[...]
$ echo '#include <signal.h>' | gcc -x c -o - -E - | grep psignal
extern void psignal (int __sig, __const char *__s);
#v-
Same for ``man psignal''.
Here is a better patch. (It was late last night...)
#v+
2007-11-13 Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge@gnu.org>
* strsignal.c (psignal): Adjust comment and parameters to what is
used in BSD systems.
Index: strsignal.c
===================================================================
--- strsignal.c (Revision 130136)
+++ strsignal.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -536,7 +536,7 @@
/*
-@deftypefn Supplemental void psignal (unsigned @var{signo}, char *@var{message})
+@deftypefn Supplemental void psignal (int @var{signo}, const char *@var{message})
Print @var{message} to the standard error, followed by a colon,
followed by the description of the signal specified by @var{signo},
@@ -549,7 +549,7 @@
#ifndef HAVE_PSIGNAL
void
-psignal (unsigned signo, char *message)
+psignal (int signo, const char *message)
{
if (signal_names == NULL)
{
#v-
Someone then also needs to regenerate the `functions.texi' file. Shall I
also submit a patch for that one?
Regards,
Thomas
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc-4_2-branch: tiny issue with libiberty
2007-11-13 14:02 ` Thomas Schwinge
@ 2007-11-13 14:37 ` DJ Delorie
2007-11-13 16:29 ` Thomas Schwinge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2007-11-13 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tschwinge; +Cc: gcc-patches
> This function is a BSD feature, declared in the header file
> `signal.h'.
If you're using BSD, you already have psignal() and won't be (or
shouldn't be) using the one in libiberty, so the prototype doesn't
need to match.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc-4_2-branch: tiny issue with libiberty
2007-11-13 14:37 ` DJ Delorie
@ 2007-11-13 16:29 ` Thomas Schwinge
2007-11-13 16:43 ` DJ Delorie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2007-11-13 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1069 bytes --]
Hello!
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:02:02AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > This function is a BSD feature, declared in the header file
> > `signal.h'.
>
> If you're using BSD, you already have psignal() and won't be (or
> shouldn't be) using the one in libiberty, so the prototype doesn't
> need to match.
I'm not using a BSD system. I only quoted where the function was
originating from.
The error for me showed up when building a cross compiler to a
glibc-based system. I will try to investigate why the libiberty
configure machinery failed to detect the `psignal' symbol from the
target's glibc, which should have included that symbol. The error showed
up, because the target glibc's <signal.h> header had been included and
thus its `psignal' declaration didn't match the libiberty `psignal'
definition.
Nevertheless, I don't understand why you don't want to adapt the
parameters to what other systems (glibc, BSD) are using? Why should
libiberty provide a (marginally) different version of `psignal'?
Regards,
Thomas
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc-4_2-branch: tiny issue with libiberty
2007-11-13 16:29 ` Thomas Schwinge
@ 2007-11-13 16:43 ` DJ Delorie
2007-11-17 17:35 ` Thomas Schwinge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: DJ Delorie @ 2007-11-13 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tschwinge; +Cc: gcc-patches
> Nevertheless, I don't understand why you don't want to adapt the
> parameters to what other systems (glibc, BSD) are using? Why should
> libiberty provide a (marginally) different version of `psignal'?
Well, for starters, it helps us find build problems like yours :-)
(I'm a big fan of choosing "fail loudly" over "fail quietly")
Since our psignal should only get used on platforms without their own
psignal, why does it matter?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc-4_2-branch: tiny issue with libiberty
2007-11-13 16:43 ` DJ Delorie
@ 2007-11-17 17:35 ` Thomas Schwinge
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2007-11-17 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DJ Delorie; +Cc: gcc-patches, Roland McGrath
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1653 bytes --]
[Roland: for your information.]
Hello!
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 10:58:30AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Nevertheless, I don't understand why you don't want to adapt the
> > parameters to what other systems (glibc, BSD) are using? Why should
> > libiberty provide a (marginally) different version of `psignal'?
>
> Well, for starters, it helps us find build problems like yours :-)
>
> (I'm a big fan of choosing "fail loudly" over "fail quietly")
I absolutely agree to ``failing loudly'' instead of ``failing quietly'',
however I think that this is a non-argument for the issue at hand here,
as it only triggered, because that one prototype (of GNU libc's and BSD
libc's `psignal') happened to be different from the libiberty
implementation. Or do you want to suggest that you're going to introduce
such function signature changes for every libiberty-provided symbol? I
hope you don't. :-)
> Since our psignal should only get used on platforms without their own
> psignal, why does it matter?
So that the next person to see through this part of the libiberty sources
doesn't wonder why the libiberty `psignal' is (marginally) different from
the GNU libc or BSD libc one. I still uphold that my patch should be
installed, but that's not for me to decide, obviously.
As for the original report: this was while building a i586-pc-gnu cross
compiler from the gcc-4_2-branch sources. I can't reproduce the original
problem anymore and already lost the previous `config.log' file. I
suspect it was a bogon resulting from a stale `config.cache' file and
change in the target's libc.
Regards,
Thomas
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc-4_2-branch: tiny issue with libiberty
2007-11-13 8:42 gcc-4_2-branch: tiny issue with libiberty Thomas Schwinge
2007-11-13 9:25 ` DJ Delorie
@ 2007-11-19 10:06 ` Ben Elliston
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ben Elliston @ 2007-11-19 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Schwinge; +Cc: gcc-patches, dj
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 02:51 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On a build of the gcc-4_2-branch I noticed a tiny problem with libiberty,
> which the following patch fixes. Could this please be applied to
> gcc-4_2-branch and trunk?
I committed a fix to libiberty shortly after GCC branched for 4.2. See
revision r121364.
Cheers, Ben
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-11-18 23:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-11-13 8:42 gcc-4_2-branch: tiny issue with libiberty Thomas Schwinge
2007-11-13 9:25 ` DJ Delorie
2007-11-13 14:02 ` Thomas Schwinge
2007-11-13 14:37 ` DJ Delorie
2007-11-13 16:29 ` Thomas Schwinge
2007-11-13 16:43 ` DJ Delorie
2007-11-17 17:35 ` Thomas Schwinge
2007-11-19 10:06 ` Ben Elliston
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).