Your message dated Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:32:38 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#222514: libc6-dev: restrict_arr should be #define'd empty
if __STRICT_ANSI__ is defined
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-10
Severity: minor
ANSI/ISO C90 does not know the restrict keyword for arrays. In
<sys/cdefs.h> it should be checked for the __STRICT_ANSI__ macro.
Line 245:
#if __GNUC_PREREQ (3,1) && !defined __GNUG__
Should be:
#if __GNUC_PREREQ (3,1) && !defined __GNUG__ && !defined __STRICT_ANSI__
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux wwid 2.4.21-3-k7 #1 Sun Jul 20 19:23:36 EST 2003 i686
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ignored: LC_ALL set to [EMAIL
PROTECTED])
Versions of packages libc6-dev depends on:
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii linux-kernel-headers 2.5.999-test7-bk-9 Linux Kernel Headers for developme
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2.5
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 01:49:24PM +0100, Roland Illig wrote:
> ANSI/ISO C90 does not know the restrict keyword for arrays. In
> <sys/cdefs.h> it should be checked for the __STRICT_ANSI__ macro.
>
> Line 245:
> #if __GNUC_PREREQ (3,1) && !defined __GNUG__
>
> Should be:
> #if __GNUC_PREREQ (3,1) && !defined __GNUG__ && !defined __STRICT_ANSI__
this guards an alias on __restrict which is a GNUC extension, and is
valid to be used. it's aliased on 'restrict' _iff_ you are using a C99
aware compiler, which is the intended behaviour and correct.
Maybe it was not the case in glibc 2.3.2 hence closing the bug for
libc 2.5, I'm too lazy to check if it was broken before :)
Cheers,
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpjTGdzarflS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
