This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC problem (Was: Re: [bugs] Problem compiling the kernel)
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 03:38:10PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Bo Thorsen wrote:
>
> > typedef struct { } spinlock_t;
> > spinlock_t runqueue_lock
> > __attribute__((__aligned__((1 << ((6)))),
> > __section__(".data.cacheline_aligned"))) = (spinlock_t) { };
> >
> > ----- problem.c -----
> >
> > > ../crossbuild/x86-64/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gcc problem.c
> > problem.c:4: initializer element is not constant
> >
> > ia32 gcc works fine.
> >
> > Ideas on how this has come to be?
>
> No-one spoke up in favour of this extension (treating compound literals as
> if they were the brace-enclosed lists they contain) when I asked
> <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-11/msg01161.html>, so I killed it when
> implementing proper C99 semantics for compound literals. A compound
> literal, as an expression here of structure type, is not a valid
> initializer for an object of static storage duration.
How big burden would to be keep supporting this in -std=gnu89 and -std=gnu99
modes? I don't think Linux kernel is the only user of this extension.
Jakub