Is the empty initializers bug fixed in gcc-3.0?

From: Niels Kristian Bech Jensen (nkbj@image.dk)
Date: Sun Apr 22 2001 - 05:35:02 EST

Next message: Alon Ziv: "Re: light weight user level semaphores"
Previous message: Giacomo A. Catenazzi: "Re: [kbuild-devel] Request for comment -- a better attribution system"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This piece of code from include/linux/spinlock.h (linux-2.4.3) works
around a compiler bug with empty initializers. Does anybody know if this
bug has been fixed in gcc-3.0?

/*
* Your basic spinlocks, allowing only a single CPU anywhere
*
* Most gcc versions have a nasty bug with empty initializers.
*/
#if (__GNUC__ > 2)
  typedef struct { } spinlock_t;
  #define SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED (spinlock_t) { }
#else
  typedef struct { int gcc_is_buggy; } spinlock_t;
  #define SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED (spinlock_t) { 0 }
#endif

-- Niels Kristian Bech Jensen -- nkbj@image.dk -- http://www.image.dk/~nkbj/

----------->> Stop software piracy --- use free software! <<-----------

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Alon Ziv: "Re: light weight user level semaphores"
Previous message: Giacomo A. Catenazzi: "Re: [kbuild-devel] Request for comment -- a better attribution system"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 21:00:42 EST