On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 03:11:50PM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:38:14PM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:20:26PM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:35:51PM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> >> >> With xf86-video-intel-git13461a1 [1] I see this: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> [ build-log ] > >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> CC sna_cpu.lo > >> >> >> 8 warnings generated. > >> >> >> CC sna_damage.lo > >> >> >> CC sna_display.lo > >> >> >> sna_cpu.c:47:2: error: implicit declaration of function '__cpuid' is > >> >> >> invalid in C99 [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration] > >> >> >> __cpuid(1, eax, ebx, ecx, edx); > >> >> >> ^ > >> >> > [snip] > >> >> > > >> >> >> So, clang should be treated differently? > >> >> > > >> >> > It doesn't use cpuid.h unless the compiler claims to be gcc >= 4. It > >> >> > would appear once again that clang is broken. > >> >> > >> >> Can you explain why clang is BROKEN in your eyes? > >> > > >> > Because it claims to be gcc 4, yet fails to provide a function/macro > >> > provided by gcc 4. > >> > >> Even clang latest-git has same file [1]. > >> Any workaround you can imagine? > > > > && !defined(__clang__) > > > > Based on the bug reports I have, I would strongly recommend not to use > > clang as it is known to miscompile the ddx. My outlook is jaundiced > > though as people report the failures but not if it ever then succeeds in > > not exploding during use. > > Can you explain what you mean with "miscompilation"? It generates invalid object code that cause segfaults during use. Besides which as you have also demonstrated, it barely understands C. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
