From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [ofw] [PATCH] opensm - add OSM_CDECL to qsort compare function definitions Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:59:57 -0600 Message-ID: <20091008175957.GZ5191@obsidianresearch.com> References: <6678A2C4663F40F3AC7B364C6ACFCC9F@amr.corp.intel.com> <7E11A1A23B5A46DB8BB84556E67BF487@amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7E11A1A23B5A46DB8BB84556E67BF487-Zpru7NauK7drdx17CPfAsdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sean Hefty Cc: "Smith, Stan" , 'Sasha Khapyorsky' , ofw-ZwoEplunGu1OwGhvXhtEPSCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org, 'linux-rdma' List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 10:10:34AM -0700, Sean Hefty wrote: > >X86 linkage requires __cdecl attribute on qsort() compare function definition; > >matches Windows qsort() prototype. > >Add existing OSM_CDECL to qsort() compare function defintions. > >OSM_CDECL defined blank for Linux. > > ibping also requires the use __cdecl. So far, I've been maintaining > that patch separately and applying it before updating the winof code > base. If multiple users of __cdecl are required, maybe we can find > a common place for the definition. I don't get it - how can an ISO C conforming compiler require a non-standard declaration on the function argument to the ISO C function qsort? Has the default calling convention been changed for some reason? Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html