From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12809 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2004 15:56:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12501 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2004 15:55:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vortex.ices.utexas.edu) (128.83.68.102) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 Dec 2004 15:55:59 -0000 Received: from terra.ices.utexas.edu (terra.ices.utexas.edu [128.83.68.97]) by vortex.ices.utexas.edu (8.12.8/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB1Ftxp6017619; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:55:59 -0600 Received: by terra.ices.utexas.edu (Postfix, from userid 364) id 757BF31C8C; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:55:59 -0600 (CST) From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: Andrew Pinski Subject: Re: Mainline bootstrap failure in toplev.c Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:56:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, rth@gcc.gnu.org References: <200412010932.02561.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> <103296E5-43AF-11D9-A5AA-000A95D692F4@physics.uc.edu> In-Reply-To: <103296E5-43AF-11D9-A5AA-000A95D692F4@physics.uc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200412010955.59087.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00049.txt.bz2 > Yes this is caused by the newer linux kernel headers which define > inline as "__inline__ __attribute__((always_inline))". So this is the > normal linux kernel headers [expletive deleted to get around spam block] up > the build. This was reported Ah, thanks. (I have other gripe with the kernel on this machine, since it doesn't allow the use any other compiler in /usr/include/linux/compiler.h unless it identifies itself as gcc...) > back when the linux kernel headers changed and when the error was added > to gcc. Apparently it didn't help, as there are now systems out there on which gcc doesn't bootstrap. So we need to find a workaround. However, I'd like again to ask whether it is intentional that we have two different implementations of the same function? This strikes me as wrong, and the lack of comments doesn't indicate that this was a conscious decision. It is hardly worth noting, I guess, that removing one of the definitions allows the bootstrap to continue... W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/