Kyle Moffett wrote:
Gah, this particular topic and a few other similar header-compatibility
ones show up once a month on LKML; I should probably just make a patch
to fix all the types.h files and be done with it. The proper solution
is this:
# if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 19901L
typedef signed long long __s64;
typedef unsigned long long __u64;
# elif defined(__GNUC__)
__extension__ typedef signed long long __s64;
__extension__ typedef unsigned long long __u64;
# else
# error "Your compiler doesn't support long long (IOW: It sucks).
Please get a new one"
# endif
That way if you have any kind of vaguely-long-long-compatible compiler
then it will work, and otherwise you'll get a nice useful error
message. It also makes sure that GCC doesn't spew warnings/errors when
in c89-pedantic mode. The "__extension__" keyword is designed for use
in implementation header files which want to use GCC-isms unconditionally.
__extension__ should be macroized if so.
However, since something that doesn't have "long long" won't be able to
compile those headers, there is absolutely no reason to not simply use
it -- you get an error message on that line, which is good enough.
There is definitely no reason to use a test like the one above, which is
wrong for several supportable compilers.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
