This is the mail archive of the glibc-bugs@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
hi, i do have to cases first one: while porting a linux project to the amd 64 bit platform on a gentoo linux based os, i ran into some trouble. /usr/src/linux/include/asm/types.h:22: error: conflicting declaration 'typedef long long int int64_t' /usr/include/gentoo-multilib/amd64/sys/types.h:199: error: 'int64_t' has a previous declaration as 'typedef long int int64_t' /usr/src/linux/include/asm/types.h:23: error: conflicting declaration 'typedef long long unsigned int u_int64_t' /usr/include/gentoo-multilib/amd64/sys/types.h:209: error: 'u_int64_t' has a previous declaration as 'typedef long unsigned int u_int64_t' this is happening everytime, when i include e.h. linux/dvb/dmx.h header that itself includes <asm/types.h> reordering include entries in some places - so kernel includes are done before any other - does work. second case: while debugging case a i found a missing #ifdef clause in sys/types.h also. this following section is copy&paste out of libc cvs posix/sys/types.h # ifndef __int8_t_defined # define __int8_t_defined __intN_t (8, __QI__); __intN_t (16, __HI__); __intN_t (32, __SI__); __intN_t (64, __DI__); # endif __u_intN_t (8, __QI__); __u_intN_t (16, __HI__); __u_intN_t (32, __SI__); __u_intN_t (64, __DI__); it does a check for signed int types if maybe a redefinition would happen. it does no check for the unsigned ones. following would be the correct implementation imho. # ifndef __int8_t_defined # define __int8_t_defined __intN_t (8, __QI__); __intN_t (16, __HI__); __intN_t (32, __SI__); __intN_t (64, __DI__); # endif # ifndef __u_int8_t_defined # define __u_int8_t_defined __u_intN_t (8, __QI__); __u_intN_t (16, __HI__); __u_intN_t (32, __SI__); __u_intN_t (64, __DI__); # endif any hints on case a or b? if b is correct, should i provide a patch against cvs? best regards marcel
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |