From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4B30B154.2010203@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:45:24 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4B309A29.6030405@domain.hid> <4B30AF29.4050303@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4B30AF29.4050303@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Build tests: analogy, blackfin, rtcan and nios2. List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Xenomai core , Wolfgang Grandegger Jan Kiszka wrote: > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> * rtcan: on blackfin we seem to have a conflict with rtcan. >> The warning is about CAN_ERR_MASK, sure blackfin is a bit strange to >> define this in core headers which are included everywhere. This said, >> not prefixing a Xenomai symbol with something like XN seems to be asking >> for trouble. Wolfgang, do you think it would be possible to rename the >> symbols with such prefix? Or do you share some code with socket-can that >> you do not want to touch? > > CAN_ERR_MASK is part of the Socket-CAN interface (include/linux/can.h), > it must not be called differently. Blackfin is obviously doing namespace > pollution which should be fixed upstream and meanwhile worked around in > Xenomai (e.g. via #undef CAN_ERR_MASK). Ok. But according to the build logs, it is redefined in rtdm/rtcan.h. The error seems to have been fixed upstream, since we get this warning with 2.6.30 and not with 2.6.31. -- Gilles.