Re: [patch] gcc4 fixes

2005-06-02 Thread Gerrit P. Haase
Brian Dessent wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: While this might help to avoid... something, I'm seriously wondering what's wrong with this expression. Why does each new version of gcc add new incompatibilities? Well, it might actually be "a gcc bug". Here I admit to using a snapshot ver

Re: [patch] gcc4 fixes

2005-05-18 Thread Brian Dessent
Brian Dessent wrote: > entirely in their build scripts due to compiler problems. So who knows, > maybe I should try with a release build. With the release version of gcc 4.0.0 and without the mmap() kludge I get the same thing: FAIL: mmaptest01.c (execute) FAIL: mmaptest03.c (execute) FAIL: mma

Re: [patch] gcc4 fixes

2005-05-18 Thread Brian Dessent
Christopher Faylor wrote: > >While this might help to avoid... something, I'm seriously wondering > >what's wrong with this expression. Why does each new version of gcc > >add new incompatibilities? > > Well, it might actually be "a gcc bug". Here I admit to using a snapshot verion of gcc and n

Re: [patch] gcc4 fixes

2005-05-18 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 10:01:33AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On May 17 15:50, Brian Dessent wrote: >> diff -u -r1.109 mmap.cc >> --- mmap.cc 2 May 2005 03:50:07 - 1.109 >> +++ mmap.cc 17 May 2005 22:40:14 - >> @@ -500,14 +500,14 @@ >> } >> } >> >> +static DWORD granula

Re: [patch] gcc4 fixes

2005-05-18 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On May 17 15:50, Brian Dessent wrote: > diff -u -r1.109 mmap.cc > --- mmap.cc 2 May 2005 03:50:07 - 1.109 > +++ mmap.cc 17 May 2005 22:40:14 - > @@ -500,14 +500,14 @@ > } > } > > +static DWORD granularity = getshmlba (); > + > extern "C" void * > mmap64 (void *addr, size

Re: [patch] gcc4 fixes

2005-05-17 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 06:15:08PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> Go ahead and check these in but please use GNU formatting conventions, >> i.e., it's (char *) NULL, not (char *)NULL. Actually, isn't just NULL >> sufficient? > >I must have had C++ on the mind, thinking

Re: [patch] gcc4 fixes

2005-05-17 Thread Brian Dessent
Christopher Faylor wrote: > Go ahead and check these in but please use GNU formatting conventions, > i.e., it's (char *) NULL, not (char *)NULL. Actually, isn't just NULL > sufficient? I must have had C++ on the mind, thinking that the cast was necessary. > Sorry but no. This is a workaround.

Re: [patch] gcc4 fixes

2005-05-17 Thread Robert Collins
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 19:31 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 03:50:08PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: > > > >This is just a trivial change of argument to execl() testcases, which > >supresses the warning 'missing sentinel in function call' in gcc4 that > >causes the tests to

Re: [patch] gcc4 fixes

2005-05-17 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 03:50:08PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: > >This is just a trivial change of argument to execl() testcases, which >supresses the warning 'missing sentinel in function call' in gcc4 that >causes the tests to fail. > >winsup/testsuite >2005-05-17 Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTE

[patch] gcc4 fixes

2005-05-17 Thread Brian Dessent
This is just a trivial change of argument to execl() testcases, which supresses the warning 'missing sentinel in function call' in gcc4 that causes the tests to fail. winsup/testsuite 2005-05-17 Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * winsup.api/signal-into-win32-api.c (main): Use 'NULL' i