Re: is broken

2012-02-09 Thread Eric Blake
On 02/09/2012 03:26 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Feb 8 19:41, Howland Craig D (Craig) wrote: >> Eric: >> I suggest adding a brief comment explaining the need for the >> static. >> (For the lists, we had a brief off-list discussion, where Eric >> quoted >> C99 section 6.2.2 paragraph

Re: is broken

2012-02-09 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Feb 8 19:41, Howland Craig D (Craig) wrote: > Eric: > I suggest adding a brief comment explaining the need for the > static. > (For the lists, we had a brief off-list discussion, where Eric > quoted > C99 section 6.2.2 paragraph 5 and section 6.7.4 paragraph 6. Together > they give t

RE: is broken

2012-02-08 Thread Howland Craig D (Craig)
ygwin=cygwin.com; newlib=sourceware.org Subject: Re: is broken On 02/08/2012 07:06 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Feb 8 06:33, Eric Blake wrote: >> STC showing that sysmacros doesn't work when included indirectly in C99 >> mode: >> >> $ cat foo.c >> #include >

Re: is broken

2012-02-08 Thread Eric Blake
On 02/08/2012 07:06 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Feb 8 06:33, Eric Blake wrote: >> STC showing that sysmacros doesn't work when included indirectly in C99 >> mode: >> >> $ cat foo.c >> #include >> int main() { return makedev(0,0); } >> $ gcc -o foo foo.c >> $ gcc -o foo foo.c --std=c99 >> /tm

Re: is broken

2012-02-08 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Feb 8 06:33, Eric Blake wrote: > STC showing that sysmacros doesn't work when included indirectly in C99 > mode: > > $ cat foo.c > #include > int main() { return makedev(0,0); } > $ gcc -o foo foo.c > $ gcc -o foo foo.c --std=c99 > /tmp/ccT40f0H.o:foo.c:(.text+0x1e): undefined reference to >