This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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]

Re: GCC build of HEAD failed for native with your patch on 2004-07-06T18:32:38Z.

From: Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
Cc: gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:03:43 -0400
Subject: Re: GCC build of HEAD failed for native with your patch on 2004-07-06T18:32:38Z.
References: <200407070301.i6731CR10059@tin.geop.uc.edu>

OK, thanks. Can the second declaration of GC_task_self be deleted?

Regards

Bryce

Andrew Pinski wrote:

And here is the fix after the recent changes to c-decl.c.

OK?

ChangeLog:
	* os_dep.c (GC_task_self): Declare as static.

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 02:58:57 -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) { \

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC build of HEAD failed for native with your patch on 2004-07-06T18:32:38Z.
  - From: Andrew Pinski

References:
- Re: GCC build of HEAD failed for native with your patch on 2004-07-06T18:32:38Z.
  - From: Andrew Pinski

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]