Ben Hutchings dixit: >But there are no warnings in the log for use of these functions >without declarations. So if <linux/string.h> is not included >already (indirectly), where are they declared? I don't believe
I fear they might be correct and gcc replaces certain function calls with others, or – worse – replaces certain “expanded” code with function calls, AGAIN. I’ve seen this behaviour in my other kernel code sometimes and build with -ffreestanding (but does that guarantee this won’t happen?) to maybe fix that. Since the Linux Kernel build system is terminally broken¹, I don’t even know whether it uses -ffreestanding, all I see is “CC”… bye, //mirabilos ① unless you pass V=1 or something (can never seem to recall which of these applies to which of the broken build system set), but I can’t really do that without changing the source package, which, in turn, I don’t do if I want to produce standard, reproducible, Debian packages ready for uploading to the archive, as close to the rules for main as possible. -- Solange man keine schmutzigen Tricks macht, und ich meine *wirklich* schmutzige Tricks, wie bei einer doppelt verketteten Liste beide Pointer XORen und in nur einem Word speichern, funktioniert Boehm ganz hervorragend. -- Andreas Bogk über boehm-gc in d.a.s.r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
