Re: [gentoo-dev][PATCH v1 ] sys-fs/hfsplusutils with gcc-5: blockiter.c:148:8: error: redefinition of blockiter_curr #580620

2016-04-23 Thread Mike Frysinger
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

Re: [gentoo-dev][PATCH v1 ] sys-fs/hfsplusutils with gcc-5: blockiter.c:148:8: error: redefinition of blockiter_curr #580620

2016-04-23 Thread David Seifert
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

Re: [gentoo-dev][PATCH v1 ] sys-fs/hfsplusutils with gcc-5: blockiter.c:148:8: error: redefinition of blockiter_curr #580620

2016-04-23 Thread Mike Frysinger
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

[gentoo-dev][PATCH v1 ] sys-fs/hfsplusutils with gcc-5: blockiter.c:148:8: error: redefinition of blockiter_curr #580620

2016-04-22 Thread Leno Hou
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