On 23 Apr 2016 11:39, David Seifert wrote:
please don't top post
> I generally prefer using -std=gnu89 instead of -fgnu89-inline, as GCC might
> change some C11 semantics later on. To me -std=gnu89 seems more robust.
perhaps, but other than gnu-inline behavior, it seems to be fine.
if we hit
I generally prefer using -std=gnu89 instead of -fgnu89-inline, as GCC might
change some C11 semantics later on. To me -std=gnu89 seems more robust.
David
> On 22 Apr 2016, at 23:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> On 22 Apr 2016 03:57, Leno Hou wrote:
>> +-extern inline UInt32
On 22 Apr 2016 03:57, Leno Hou wrote:
> +-extern inline UInt32 blockiter_curr(blockiter *b)
> +-{
> +-return b->e->start_block + b->block;
> +-}
> +-
> +-
> ++extern inline UInt32 blockiter_curr(blockiter *b);
i don't think that's how you want to handle extern inline.
it doesn't make sense
Signed-off-by: Leno Hou
---
.../files/hfsplusutils-1.0.4-gcc5.patch| 98 ++
sys-fs/hfsplusutils/hfsplusutils-1.0.4-r1.ebuild | 1 +
2 files changed, 99 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 sys-fs/hfsplusutils/files/hfsplusutils-1.0.4-gcc5.patch