-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 06/29/2015 11:56 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: > On 06/29/2015 02:04 PM, Anoop C S wrote: >> >> Reading through gcc docs I could see that with gcc v5, it >> defaults to C99 semantics and compiling with -fgnu89-inline >> solves the above issue. I'm wondering how glusterfs compiled >> successfully without providing this flag. > > Well, it didn't originally. > > Most of the bugs were fixed before Fedora 22 arrived with gcc-5. > > E.g. by building on Fedora Rawhide last year, reporting the bugs, > and getting them fixed before Rawhide turned into Fedora 22. > Immediately after the Fedora 22 release, we had a similar issue reported from a user with gcc v5 and was fixed through [1]. [1] http://review.gluster.org/#/c/11004/ >> I'm investigating on other ways to use inline that behave the >> same in the old and the new semantics. > > Using a command line option to get 1989 compiler semantics in 2015 > seems like a mistake. > That's correct. I just tried that 89 option to see whether it fixes or not. I will have to check once more building glusterfs on f22 with gcc v5. I will update the thread when I'm done. - --Anoop C S. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iJwEAQEIAAYFAlWRkREACgkQ9uBlhhlWMJZ3zQQAvN30O7tkUwZMGSkVZB5FB8fo ixoAYiJ00tGYIwp4jTxvJ4daWI7dThxuYAKB8qmX+qlE0boSO5toL5MIqo2BwfeK I26DHn9YTCG1Mi3/yGaXkO02wFRSGjFIFc9UgV2HJ01J1znHHzPdkfF30nwDuw7S orkn2BMDwizbIClHgAo= =NRz9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
