From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: rc4 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:21:48 +0200 Sender: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from Cantor.suse.de (ns.suse.de [213.95.15.193]) by alsa.alsa-project.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id MAA26023 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:21:55 +0200 In-Reply-To: Errors-To: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: tomasz motylewski Cc: ALSA development List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org At Wed, 23 Oct 2002 20:17:15 +0200 (CEST), tomasz motylewski wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > I have just updated to CVS. > > > > > > Debian 2.2 > > > > > > I needed to run autoconf; ./configure; make; ./configure; make > > > > do you mean that the original configure script in rc4 tarball doesn't > > work? if yes, it's a bug of rc4 tarball - we have to release rc5... > > No, I have got CVS version, but did not run cvscompile - my fault. > > But now with the real rc4 tarball and 2.4.9 kernel + Debian 2.2rev7 > ./configure > make > [...] > make[3]: Leaving directory `/tmp/alsa-driver-0.9.0rc4/isa/wavefront' > /tmp/alsa-driver-0.9.0rc4/include/sndversions.h was not updated > gcc -M -D__KERNEL__ -DMODULE=1 -I/tmp/alsa-driver-0.9.0rc4/include > -I/lib/modules/2.4.9/build/include -O2 -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686 > -DLINUX -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -DALSA_BUILD > als100.c azt2320.c cmi8330.c dt019x.c es18xx.c opl3sa2.c sgalaxy.c sscape.c > > .depend > sscape.c:500: macro `min' used with only 2 args > make[2]: *** [fastdep] Error 1 > make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/alsa-driver-0.9.0rc4/isa' > make[1]: *** [dep] Error 1 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/alsa-driver-0.9.0rc4' > make: *** [include/sndversions.h] Error 2 > > > I would say, low priority - 2.4.9 kernel is probably quite exotic at the > moment. yes, i guess it's the kernel version problem. there was the time shortly once that min() and max() macro takes the third argument for specifying the variable type. it was removed in the later version. there are definitions of correct min() and max() macros in adriver.h. they are protected by ifdef, so you can put #undef min and #undef max so that they will be redefined. i hope this doesn't conflict... Takashi ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4729346;7592162;s?http://www.sun.com/javavote