This is the mail archive of the
gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC build of HEAD failed for native with your patch on 2004-07-06T18:32:38Z.
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- To: mckinlay at redhat dot com (Bryce McKinlay)
- Cc: pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu (Andrew Pinski), gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:07:56 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: GCC build of HEAD failed for native with your patch on 2004-07-06T18:32:38Z.
> OK, thanks. Can the second declaration of GC_task_self be deleted?
I knew I forgot to CC a mailing list on the first one. :(
Yes and here is what I committed:
2004-07-06 Andrew Pinski <apinski@apple.com>
* os-dep.c (GC_task_self): Declare as static
and remove the second declaration.
Index: os_dep.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/boehm-gc/os_dep.c,v
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -p -r1.28 os_dep.c
--- os_dep.c 22 Sep 2003 16:00:23 -0000 1.28
+++ os_dep.c 7 Jul 2004 03:07:01 -0000
@@ -2137,7 +2137,7 @@ GC_bool is_ptrfree;
/* Using vm_protect (mach syscall) over mprotect (BSD syscall) seems to
decrease the likelihood of some of the problems described below. */
#include <mach/vm_map.h>
- extern mach_port_t GC_task_self;
+ static mach_port_t GC_task_self;
#define PROTECT(addr,len) \
if(vm_protect(GC_task_self,(vm_address_t)(addr),(vm_size_t)(len), \
FALSE,VM_PROT_READ) != KERN_SUCCESS) { \
@@ -3312,8 +3312,6 @@ extern kern_return_t exception_raise_sta
#define MAX_EXCEPTION_PORTS 16
-static mach_port_t GC_task_self;
-
static struct {
mach_msg_type_number_t count;
exception_mask_t masks[MAX_EXCEPTION_PORTS];