On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 09:53:09AM +0100, Christophe LEROY wrote: > > > Le 16/03/2018 à 22:54, Mark Greer a écrit : > >When building a uImage or zImage using ppc6xx_defconfig and some other > >defconfigs, the following error occurs: > > > > BOOTCC arch/powerpc/boot/fdt.o > > In file included from arch/powerpc/boot/fdt.c:51:0: > > ../arch/powerpc/boot/libfdt_env.h:10:13: error: redefinition of typedef > > 'uint32_t' > > ../arch/powerpc/boot/types.h:21:13: note: previous declaration of > > 'uint32_t' was here > > ../arch/powerpc/boot/libfdt_env.h:11:13: error: redefinition of typedef > > 'uint64_t' > > ../arch/powerpc/boot/types.h:22:13: note: previous declaration of > > 'uint64_t' was here > > ../arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile:210: recipe for target > > 'arch/powerpc/boot/fdt.o' failed > > make[2]: *** [arch/powerpc/boot/fdt.o] Error 1 > > > >The problem is that commit 656ad58ef19e (powerpc/boot: Add OPAL console > >to epapr wrappers) adds typedefs for uint32_t and uint64_t to type.h but > >doesn't remove the pre-existing (and now duplicate) typedefs from > >libfdt_env.h. Fix the error by removing the duplicat typedefs from > >libfdt_env.h > > > >CC: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> > >CC: Oliver O'Halloran <ooh...@gmail.com> > >Signed-off-by: Mark Greer <mgr...@animalcreek.com> > >--- > >Having said all of that, commit 656ad58ef19e (powerpc/boot: Add OPAL > >console to epapr wrappers) went into mainline back in 2016 so, AFAICT, > >this has been broken since then. That seems unlikely so I must be > >missing something... Any ideas what that is? > > I just compiled uImage for ppc6xx_defconfig, and I don't get such error. > I looked at what gcc -E outputs, u32 is defined twice but it doesn't seems > to bother GCC. > > What version of GCC do you use ? > I tried with 5.4.0 and 4.6.3, both seems to work. > > Christophe
Hi Christophe. That's interesting. I would expect an error regardless of version. I used an old 4.5.1 gcc that I had laying around (from denx, iirc). I'll find a newer one and try it. Either way, it seems to me that we should remove the duplicate definitions. Do you agree? Thanks, Mark --
