On 06 June 2007 14:35, Tim Prince wrote:
> I have patched stdio.h, but it may not be your latest recommendation.
This does indeed turn out to be the problem. In your local patched stdio.h
you have:
#if defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(__GNUC_STDC_INLINE__)
#define ELIDABLE_INLINE extern inline
#
On 06 June 2007 14:35, Tim Prince wrote:
[ artimi dot org removed from Cc: line as it does not exist. ]
>> Tim, are you sure you have the patched version of stdio.h in your
>> /usr/include, or are you trying a combined build?
>>
>
> I have patched stdio.h, but it may not be your latest reco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 04 June 2007 23:43, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Timothy C Prince" writes:
[ quoting an earlier post of mine ]
So, am I correct to believe that we need to use plain 'inline' for c99
after gcc 4.4, and 'extern inline' before that? That is, I think I need
to writ
On 04 June 2007 23:43, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Timothy C Prince" writes:
[ quoting an earlier post of mine ]
>> So, am I correct to believe that we need to use plain 'inline' for c99
>> after gcc 4.4, and 'extern inline' before that? That is, I think I need
>> to write a test that looks
"Timothy C Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, am I correct to believe that we need to use plain 'inline' for c99
> after gcc 4.4, and 'extern inline' before that? That is, I think I need to
> write a test that looks like...
>
>
> #if ((__GNUC__ > 4) || ((__GNUC__ == 4) && (__GNUC_MIN
-Original Message-
From: "Timothy C Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:20:34 +
In the message
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg01088.html
Dave Korn wrote:
So, am I correct to believe that we need to use plain 'inline' for c99 after
gcc
