buffer_boundary isn't defined

buffer_boundary isn't defined

Post by Felipe Contrera » Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:10:06



Hi,

Doing some hacking I found something weird since 2.5.19, buffer_boundary and
set_buffer_boundary are not defined, at least greping the source tree I couldn't
find where they could be defined.

The weird thing is that kbuild doesn't report that.

--
Felipe Contreras
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in

More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

 
 
 

buffer_boundary isn't defined

Post by Keith Owen » Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:00:06


On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:05:10 -0500,


>Doing some hacking I found something weird since 2.5.19, buffer_boundary and
>set_buffer_boundary are not defined, at least greping the source tree I couldn't
>find where they could be defined.

>The weird thing is that kbuild doesn't report that.

include/linux/buffer_head.h: BUFFER_FNS(Boundary, boundary).  Don't you
just love macros that generate names under the covers?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in

More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

 
 
 

1. why isn't __STDC__ being defined?

I'm having a problem with a header file believing that when gcc sometimes
incorrectly defines __STDC__ :

#if (defined(__STDC__) && (!defined(sun) || defined(__svr4__)))
...

ie, Solaris (which defines __svr4__) is OK, but sunos is not (I guess).
But gcc isn't defining __STDC__ !

From the non-bugs section of gcc's info (and I'm sure you gurus know
this:

     Currently, GNU CC defines `__STDC__' as long as you don't use
     `-traditional'.  This provides good results in practice.

     Programmers normally use conditionals on `__STDC__' to ask whether
     it is safe to use certain features of ANSI C, such as function
     prototypes or ANSI token concatenation.  Since plain `gcc' supports
     all the features of ANSI C, the correct answer to these questions
     is "yes".

     Some users try to use `__STDC__' to check for the availability of
     certain library facilities.  This is actually incorrect usage in
     an ANSI C program, because the ANSI C standard says that a
     conforming freestanding implementation should define `__STDC__'
     even though it does not have the library facilities.  `gcc -ansi
     -pedantic' is a conforming freestanding implementation, and it is
     therefore required to define `__STDC__', even though it does not
     come with an ANSI C library.

"gcc -ansi -pedantic ... required to define `__STDC__'".

Why then, do I get this:

bash-2.01# uname -a
SunOS foobar 5.6 Generic sun4m sparc SUNW,SPARCstation-10
bash-2.01# > a.c
bash-2.01# gcc -E -dM -ansi -pedantic a.c
#define __STRICT_ANSI__ 1
#define __GCC_NEW_VARARGS__ 1
#define __sparc 1
#define __svr4__ 1
#define __GNUC_MINOR__ 8
#define __sun 1
#define __sun__ 1
#define __unix 1
#define __unix__ 1
#define __SVR4 1
#define __GNUC__ 2
#define __sparc__ 1
bash-2.01#

(gcc-2.8.0; Solaris 2.6)

thanks for any help. (please cc: my email; I might miss your post)

--

2. M88K <--> SCO with optical drive

3. gcc #define #define #define

4. Setup Canon Image Runner 210S

5. Bash's `continue' isn't continuing

6. UPDATE: Diamond Video Card Listing, version 2

7. 'who' Shows telnet login When There Isn't One

8. KDE Startup Problems

9. Wildcard pattern '*~' isn't interpreted in script (with rsync)

10. '/dev/hdxx is mounted' when it isn't

11. There goes the old 'linux isn't vulnerable' argument..

12. sendmail and it's message: "database '@' has not been defined"

13. select() says there's data, read() says there isn't