Another thing to ask:
FreeBSD's linuxkpi/asm/atomic.h have atomic_add, atomic_sub etc. Those
implementations are slightly different from those in SupportDefs.h (order
of variables reversed I believe).
In that case should I just change the names of these ones to linux_* and
point them to the SupportDefs ones? (In that case we will have to change it
everywhere to have a linux_ prefix wherever these functions are being
called)
On 11-Jun-2017 5:59 PM, "Vivek Roy" <vivekroyandroid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Up next, couple of warnings.
warning: implicit declaration of function 'vsnprintf' [-Wimplicit-function-
declaration]
warning: implicit declaration of function 'strtouq' [-Wimplicit-function-
declaration]
warning: implicit declaration of function 'strtoq' [-Wimplicit-function-
declaration]
warning: implicit declaration of function 'strtoul' [-Wimplicit-function-
declaration]
warning: implicit declaration of function 'strtol' [-Wimplicit-function-
declaration]
warning: implicit declaration of function 'ppsratecheck'
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
For vsnprintf we can import stdio.h
For strtouq, strtoq, strtoul and strtol we have files in posix/stdlib
Finally for ppsratecheck we need time.h from freebsd
Which of the above warnings can/should we ignore?
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Vivek Roy <vivekroyandroid@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I tried with bsd/sys/cdefs.h but it wasn't working. But having a macro
defined as Hamish said worked. Thanks again Hamish.
On 11-Jun-2017 2:35 AM, "Hamish Morrison" <hamishm53@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 09/06/2017 18:03, Vivek Roy wrote:
Yet again, in types.h there is strictly rcu_head where they have used__aligned is just a macro that tells the compiler that the type in
__aligned(size of(void *))
I can see that __aligned is defined in posix/arch and
compat/freebsd_network
I haven't included any of those and am getting an error "expected
declaration specifiers or '...' before 'sizeof' "
A Google search gave me possible reasons being, syntax errors and
circular dependencies. I checked for both, found none.
Help?
question aught to be aligned on the boundary given (in this case given the
same alignment as a pointer). Typically fundamental types will be aligned
on their size (an int on a 4 byte boundary, longs on 8 byte boundaries,
etc). But using a directive like this you can force alignment to a larger
boundary.
It will expand to some compiler-dependent directive for configuring
alignment e.g. for gcc it would be something like:
__attribute__((aligned(sizeof(void*))))
Since we only build with gcc you could just replace this with the above
(I believe clang also supports this syntax).
Or you could define a macro somewhere e.g.
#define __aligned(x) __attribute__((aligned(x)))
