> * _DARWIN_FEATURE_64_BIT_INODE indicates that the ino_t type is 64-bit, and > # if defined(_DARWIN_FEATURE_64_BIT_INODE) > The proposed changes in v4 of the patch aren't building here on 10.9. (In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #30) I believe how it is now in my patch is correct, but I'm open to being challenged on it! > objective reasons for keeping it that way. If you think it is redundant, there are no > necessary changes to a) compile on 10.10 and b) to work exactly the same as > I wasn't doing much thinking on the topic, I've simply made the minimal > (In reply to James Clarke from comment #29) (In reply to Ilya Mikhaltsou from comment #31) If you think it is redundant, there are no objective reasons for keeping it that way. I wasn't doing much thinking on the topic, I've simply made the minimal necessary changes to a) compile on 10.10 and b) to work exactly the same as before on previous versions. > rather than its value (seeing as the documentation only refers to its > _DARWIN_FEATURE_64_BIT_INODE macro, and to check whether it is defined > Please note that I have updated my patch to use the public > _DARWIN_FEATURE_64_BIT_INODE is only defined (to 1) when > _DARWIN_64_BIT_INO_T, but you can see in sys/cdefs.h that > _DARWIN_FEATURE_64_BIT_INODE macro is defined > as the documentation clearly states that it is only 64-bit when the I don't know why Ilya decided to default to a 64-bit dirent struct, > That's because they're using my original patch from this bug report > (In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #28) (In reply to James Clarke from comment #29) Please note that I have updated my patch to use the public _DARWIN_FEATURE_64_BIT_INODE macro, and to check whether it is defined rather than its value (seeing as the documentation only refers to its definition, not its value). This is different from _DARWIN_64_BIT_INO_T, but you can see in sys/cdefs.h that _DARWIN_FEATURE_64_BIT_INODE is only defined (to 1) when _DARWIN_64_BIT_INO_T is true. I don't know why Ilya decided to default to a 64-bit dirent struct, as the documentation clearly states that it is only 64-bit when the _DARWIN_FEATURE_64_BIT_INODE macro is defined ( ). That's because they're using my original patch from this bug report ( ), which itself is based off Ilya Mikhaltsou's patch (, also from this bug report). > #if SANITIZER_MAC & _DARWIN_64_BIT_INO_T > #if SANITIZER_MAC & ( !defined(_DARWIN_64_BIT_INO_T) || (In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #28) Is there status/timeline for folding in 10.10 support? The patch provided on 4.8.3 also doesn't apply to 4.9.1, which was pretty much expected. #if defined(_has_feature) & _has_feature(attribute_availability_app_extension) usr/include/Availability.h:184:44: error: missing binary operator before token "(" #if defined(_has_feature) & _has_feature(attribute_availability_with_message) usr/include/Availability.h:174:44: error: missing binary operator before token "(" In file included from /usr/include/stdio.h:65:0,įrom. Xgcc: warning: couldn’t understand kern.osversion ‘14.0.0 This remains an issue on the latest release of 4.9.1. The latter two obey the usual short-circuiting rules of standard C. "Arithmetic operators for addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, bitwise operations, shifts, comparisons, and logical operations (& and ||). Short-cutting simplifies writing such conditions. > This error is correct because with the preprocessor & does not short > _has_feature(attribute_availability_with_message) > missing binary operator before token "(" > Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.10.sdk/usr/include/Availability.h:174:44: error: > /Applications/Xcode6-Beta.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/atform/ > Looks like the Mac OS X's headers are not C99/C++98 compatible at all: > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) Patch for gcc 4.8 branch (based on gcc 4.8.3) Gcc 4.2 based patch which handles tiny version numbers properly MacPorts log from a failed attempt to build libgcc (x86_64) Patch to compile gcc on OS X 10.10 Yosemite
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |