[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hi, > > Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> 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? > > No. What happens is that GMP declares/defines various functions as > "extern inline" and expects the GNU semantics [0]. It properly guards > against the C99 semantic change (at least GMP 4.2.2 does) using the > recommended method [1].
Thanks, I now understand this better. I'll ask if gnulib can stop placing the compiler in gnu99 mode by default, it seems that is only done for some rather esoteric problem. > /* Apple's gcc build >5400 (since Xcode 3.0) doesn't support GNU inline in > C99 mode */ > #if __APPLE_CC__ > 5400 && !defined(C99_INLINE_SEMANTICS) && > __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L > #define C99_INLINE_SEMANTICS 1 > #endif > > So I suppose GMP and Guile just have to go ahead and duplicate this? Or ask Apple to fix their compiler. Isn't it possible to build gcc on mac os x manually? Then it wouldn't have this problem, I guess. /Simon _______________________________________________ Help-gnutls mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnutls
