>>> On 23.10.15 at 15:58, <julien.gr...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 23/10/15 14:52, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 23.10.15 at 15:30, <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 14:13 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 04/10/15 20:24, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>> The keyword typeof is not portable: >>>>> >>>>> /usr/src/freebsd/sys/xen/hypervisor.h:93:2: error: implicit declaration >>>>> of function 'typeof' is invalid in C99 >>>>> [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration] >>>> >>>> Ping? Aside the fact that other bits of the header may not be iso >>>> compliant, I still think this patch is valid. >>> >>> Yes, I agree. >>> Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> >>> >>> Jan, after your earlier comments are you happy to go ahead with this for >>> now and sort the other possible issues separately? >> >> Well - it's an improvement, sure, so I'm not intending to block it >> going in if no better way can be determined in its place right away. >> What makes me hesitant is that I'm not sure there indeed will be a >> follow up to this any time soon. > > TBH, having a script which check the validity of the headers is not in > the top my todo list. Though it would be nice to have it.
No, the validating script is a nice-to-have, but nothing more. What I was referring to was a patch to drop the use of this gcc extension. > But I don't think we should delay this valid patch just because we don't > have time to write a such script. As said - I don't intend to block the patch going in; I'm just not convinced that allowing it to go in won't result in not follow up at all. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
