On 09.07.13 22:33, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:32:33 +0200 > Gary Jennejohn <gljennjohn_at_googlemail.com> wrote: > >> I just saw this breakage while compiling a kernel on HEAD updated >> minutes ago: So did I. > Is your cc a gcc or clang? My one is clang and I didn't get build > errors when I tested the commit. I was told there are those errors with > gcc. My question in the corresponding thread is so far unanswered. My cc is gcc, stock. > Here's what I wrote as a reference: > ---snip--- > Does someone know what this is supposed to result in? > > I would assume as the unions are unnamed and no variable is declared > inside the struct with it, that the size of the struct is the same as > not having those unions inside the structs. > > If this is correct I would assume the correct fix would be to #if-0 > them out. > ---snip--- I did so and my kernelbuild is happy now. Yes, I do not use this header at all. >> These line numbers all point at nameless unions. >> >> Seems to me that a union needs a name, otherwise one cannot >> access its contents. >> >> I simply named them all x to get the kernel to compile, which >> succeeded. > > Did you name it x ("union x {...};"), or did you declare a variable > x with it ("union {...} x;")?Received on Tue Jul 09 2013 - 19:03:13 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:39 UTC