From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <48430361.7070004@domain.hid> Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:15:29 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <18498.60991.572819.581076@domain.hid> <4842F10D.7060601@domain.hid> <18498.62016.697156.829501@domain.hid> <4842F62D.6010008@domain.hid> <18499.473.653868.93704@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <18499.473.653868.93704@domain.hid> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigDEF5014DF24545B0D4F8331F" Sender: jan.kiszka@domain.hid Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] enum rtdm_selecttype List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigDEF5014DF24545B0D4F8331F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: > > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > > Philippe Gerum wrote: > > > > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > >=20 > > > > > when compiling xenomai v2.4.x for ARM with gcc 4.2.1, I get p= lenty of > > > > > warnings like: > > > > > xenomai-arm/kernel/xenomai/skins/posix/syscall.c:38: > > > > > xenomai-arm/include/xenomai/rtdm/rtdm_driver.h:206: warning: = parameter has incomplete type > > > > >=20 > > > > > So it seems gcc 4.2.1 does not like the enum being used in fu= nction > > > > > prototypes without being defines. So, could we move the enum = definition > > > > > before the functions using it ? > > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > We can sort this out with a simple forward declaration. > > >=20 > > > That is the way it is done today, but gcc 4.2.1 seems not to like > > > it. Maybe recent C standards allow the compiler to pick the smalle= st type > > > for the enum as C++ does ? > > >=20 > >=20 > > Or any integral type the implementation sees fit actually. Well, yes= , maybe it > > is indeed bits of the C++ standard dripping on the C implementation = of GCC, > > especially if forward decl of enums is not explicitly defined by the= C standard. >=20 > Actually it is gcc 3.4 which does not like the forward decl, not gcc 4.= 2 I'm fine with moving it if that helps to make all compilers happy. Just ensure that it remains in the right doxygen group. Jan --------------enigDEF5014DF24545B0D4F8331F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIQwNmniDOoMHTA+kRAvdAAJ9eJdq3YTIVc4jdC7feyYCVW6Q2HACfUcqs IVPEVO1dqaPc2KNuYUFUUEA= =+mr5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigDEF5014DF24545B0D4F8331F--