Re: sim vs c99
Mike Frysinger <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20150219160213.GO544@vapier> |
On 19 Feb 2015 09:06, DJ Delorie wrote: > clang defaults to c99 and gcc is moving towards it. > > The simulator won't build with -std=c99, lots of these due to "extern > inline" using the c89 semantics: > > libsim.a(sim-core.o): In function `sim_addr_range_hit_p': > binutils-gdb/sim/msp430/../common/sim-arange.c:290: multiple definition of `sim_addr_range_hit_p' > nrun.o:binutils-gdb/sim/msp430/../common/sim-arange.c:290: first defined here > > Are there any plans to switch to C99 or at least detect/support a C99 > environment? i'm not actively looking into it (and probably won't until gcc blows up), but i have no problem if someone else wants to do so ahead of time. -mike
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 819 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU5gkFAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WBrdoQAIOnflZdL9X/9UP78Gmmgd1/ ha3CK3LVWl+uo0qlcrKYgFO9K4QtKR7LwN1sCwdTmOC4NzClsVg63FcQC4GbjZqT JQ/5ip6iNd7//oqvUI/NYXvoR/KirKr+Ajg4rwsm9SS10UhC2ayt9A5/xFAPNdED vSuv4e9aaZLI0EAv1slcb7+v2poPPo14xTl+LkLkJDwCmHlUZBlKLOleo5YZm4nO 7DnBH5QMwWSoHXoRzo+qkVozMm+QfNg9ZQgEpp/ZS+324cMmT3JC553R3liefES7 H9itTEHpwBIsbdleOO+OQbpZJZWGlOHbzOaico7ASXdSBweIClXGw5yILU6aeqPA VsXDsRN0hGakFkYuGBmjyRje5J3+jAppjAwhUwqiwO2PTre17f5L13NqhzBUGqvW vkbIHfH1YlMALCAdTdRkd9e+eGDp/UQbq1NiX/gUpvPvohzvCYSu2iKj85N6oyZf pwkfTtxr41BtWdLRBclIHzYn69ea02sf2nQ734/SYv9z6JK3mHfrhInQ8y/Z+kzi 5Izy15fs4BoTCMyPt3FxuqY1MprNj1iU8XMYBN5oK3hl42gTwqbdCh8uGhgZ32K1 mbdwS07h+wvYooXPvBZMZ9WMB7pQ3drsbuq5853ejAN//Aw/EWPC1/l4BreKcAIx prmS4VjKAs91wYTOL+tq =CjzZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----