From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com>,
namhyung@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix broken build by rearranging some #includes
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:25:09 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F152255.4080409@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1326765685-7686-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>
Hi, again
2012-01-17 11:01 AM, David Daney wrote:
> From: David Daney<david.daney@cavium.com>
>
> When building on my Debian/mips system, util/util.c fails to build
> because commit 1aed2671738785e8f5aea663a6fda91aa7ef59b5 (perf kvm: Do
> guest-only counting by default) indirectly includes stdio.h before the
> feature selection in util.h is done. This prevents _GNU_SOURCE in
> util.h from enabling the declaration of getline(), from now second
> inclusion of stdio.h, and the build is broken.
>
> There is another breakage in util/evsel.c caused by include ordering,
> but I didn't fully track down the commit that caused it.
>
> Since the #include situation is a little convoluted throughout perf, I
> did the following:
>
> 1) Always include util/util.h before all other include files.
>
> 2) Remove all #define _GNU_SOURCE, as it is already done in util.h.
>
> 3) Remove all #undef _GNU_SOURCE, as they don't do what a naive person
> might expect (or much of anything for that matter) and clutter up
> the source.
>
> 4) #include ctype.h in util.h, so that ctype things have uniform
> definitions throughout perf.
>
> 5) Remove #define of _FILE_OFFSET_BITS where util/util.h is already
> providing it.
>
> This gives me a clean build on x86_64 (fc12) and mips (Debian).
Instead of reordering, how about adding -D_GNU_SOURCE on Makefile and
removing the line from util.h? If util.h would always be included at
first, the end result should be same, right? And this way, we don't need
to care about the ordering anymore.
Thanks,
Namhyung
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-17 7:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-17 2:01 [PATCH] perf: Fix broken build by rearranging some #includes David Daney
2012-01-17 7:17 ` Namhyung Kim
2012-01-17 7:25 ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2012-01-17 18:49 ` David Daney
2012-01-17 7:25 ` Namhyung Kim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F152255.4080409@gmail.com \
--to=namhyung@gmail.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=david.daney@cavium.com \
--cc=joerg.roedel@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox