On 2023-08-05 18:19:29+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 09:28:49AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > Otherwise both gcc and clang may generate warnings about type > > mismatches: > > > > sysroot/mips/include/string.h:12:14: warning: mismatch in argument 1 type of built-in function 'malloc'; expected 'unsigned int' [-Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch] > > 12 | static void *malloc(size_t len); > > | ^~~~~~ > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h b/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h > > index 4b282435a59a..0f390c3028d8 100644 > > --- a/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h > > +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h > > @@ -15,7 +15,11 @@ typedef unsigned int uint32_t; > > typedef signed int int32_t; > > typedef unsigned long long uint64_t; > > typedef signed long long int64_t; > > +#if __SIZE_WIDTH__ == 64 > > typedef unsigned long size_t; > > +#else > > +typedef unsigned int size_t; > > +#endif > > This one breaks gcc < 7 for me because __SIZE_WIDTH__ is not defined > there. However I could trace __SIZE_TYPE__ to be defined since at least > gcc-3.4 so instead we can do this, which will always match the type set > by the compiler (either "unsigned int" or "unsigned long int") : > > #ifdef __SIZE_TYPE__ > typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t; > #else > typedef unsigned long size_t; > #endif Sounds good. But do we need the fallback? Further below we are also unconditionally using preprocessor-defines like __INT_MAX__ and __LONG_MAX__. So I guess we can drop the proposed #ifdef. > Please just let me know if you want me to modify your patch accordingly. > I'm still continuing the tests. Feel free to modify the patch. Thanks! Thomas
