Hi Masahiro, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:00:54 +0900: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:50 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Masahiro, > > > > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 22 Jan > > 2019 16:42:55 +0900: > > > > > Although drivers do not directly get access to the private data of > > > instruction patterns, let's use unnamed union field to be consistent > > > with nand_op_instr. > > > > > > > Actually this is how we wrote it the first time. Then we got robots > > reporting that anonymous unions where not allowed with older (still > > supported) GCC versions and I had to do this: > > > > > > commit c1a72e2dbb4abb90bd408480d7c48ba40cb799ce > > Author: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri Jan 19 19:11:27 2018 +0100 > > > > mtd: nand: Fix build issues due to an anonymous union > > > > GCC-4.4.4 raises errors when assigning a parameter in an anonymous > > union, leading to this kind of failure: > > > > drivers/mtd/nand/marvell_nand.c:1936: > > warning: missing braces around initializer > > warning: (near initialization for '(anonymous)[1].<anonymous>') > > error: unknown field 'data' specified in initializer > > error: unknown field 'addr' specified in initializer > > > > Work around the situation by naming these unions. > > > > Fixes: 8878b126df76 ("mtd: nand: add ->exec_op() implementation") > > Reported-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Hmm, how come Andrew's compiler was fine with the following? > > struct nand_flash_dev { > char *name; > union { > struct { > uint8_t mfr_id; > uint8_t dev_id; > }; > uint8_t id[NAND_MAX_ID_LEN]; > }; > unsigned int pagesize; > ... > }; > It is probably not :) > > > The current minimum version is GCC 4.6 > (commit cafa0010cd51fb7) > but I am not sure if this restriction is remaining. > That's right, can you please test if this limitation is still ongoing wit GCC 4.6? Thanks, Miquèl ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/