[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hi Simon, > > Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Hi. I just noticed this bug related to extern inline problems: >> >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=466778 > > That's with GCC 4.3, and a fix is going to appear in the next stable > version of Guile (1.8.5): > > > http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=guile.git;a=commitdiff;h=979eade6515559e3590f87f127d21172036f52a6 > > (Too bad Debian folks don't report bugs upstream...)
Yeah, I'm amazed they applied a patch like that without talking with upstream. Sigh. > Using `-fgnu89-inline' (when available) has essentially the same effect > as this patch. > > Furthermore, David is using 4.0, not 4.3: > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.network.gnutls.general/1099 > > GCC 4.0 does not implement C99 "extern inline", so the problem > encountered by David is actually similar but normally not related to the > "extern inline" semantics change, unless Apple has shipped a patched GCC > for all this time. Which isn't entirely impossible from what I understand, so I'd appreciate if David could try building Guile with the patch and then build gnutls. I'm still not sure whether this is a guile or gnutls problem. Before making changes in gnutls to override gnulib's gnu99 default, or adding thinks like -fgnu89-inline, I want to understand the problem better. Adding workarounds like that is easy to do, but years later the workaround often start to cause new problems and it will be difficult to know what to do. (Compare the -D_REENTRANT flag..) Would this problem go away if we removed all 'inline' tags from functions in GnuTLS? I don't think a most likely only tiny speed improvement is worth these problems. /Simon _______________________________________________ Help-gnutls mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnutls
