Hi Sasha,
There are couple of places in complib headers that cause
compiler to complain:
cl_atomic.h:73: warning: redundant redeclaration of 'cl_atomic_inc'
cl_atomic_osd.h:58: warning: previous definition of 'cl_atomic_inc' was
here
cl_atomic.h:104: warning: redundant redeclaration of 'cl_atomic_dec'
cl_atomic_osd.h:69: warning: previous definition of 'cl_atomic_dec' was
here
cl_atomic.h:136: warning: redundant redeclaration of 'cl_atomic_add'
cl_atomic_osd.h:81: warning: previous definition of 'cl_atomic_add' was
here
cl_atomic.h:171: warning: redundant redeclaration of 'cl_atomic_sub'
cl_atomic_osd.h:93: warning: previous definition of 'cl_atomic_sub' was
here
cl_thread.h:346: warning: redundant redeclaration of 'cl_is_blockable'
cl_thread_osd.h:63: warning: previous definition of 'cl_is_blockable'
was here
In general, here's the problem:
We have cl_file.h and cl_file_osd.h.
cl_file.h has include directive for cl_file_osd.h
cl_file.h has the following definition of function:
int foo();
cl_file_osd.h has another function definition, but
this time it also has implementation:
static inline int foo() { ..... }
Any preferable way to fix this?
Get rid of the _osd.h files and have the functions
implementation included in the usual .h file?
Define some *_HAVE_OSD flag in the _osd.h file
and enclose function declaration in the usual .h
file with #ifndef?
Any other ideas (I'd go for option 2)?
-- Yevgeny
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
