Hi,
I encountered some problems building RND 3.1.1 on IRIX (with the Mipspro compiler) and
on Solaris (with Sun Studio).
From the error messages and my research on the web, I conclude that the code does not
comply with the restrictions put on the usage of the new "inline" keyword in the C99
standard.
If i do _not_ enable C99 on IRIX, the compiler complains:
/usr/people/heinz/pkgsrc/games/rocksndiamonds/work/.mipspro/bin/cc -O2 -64 -I/usr/people/heinz/pkgsrc/games/rocksndiamonds/work/.buildlink/include -DTARGET_X11 "-DRO_GAME_DIR=\"/usr/people/heinz/pkg/share/rocksndiamonds\"" "-DRW_GAME_DIR=\"/usr/people/heinz/pkg/var/games/rocksndiamonds\"" -c system.c -64 -L/usr/people/heinz/kgsrc/games/rocksndiamonds/work/.buildlink/lib
cc-1077 cc: ERROR File = x11.h, Line = 337
The indicated declaration has no storage class or type specifier.
inline void X11InitVideoDisplay(void);
^
cc-1065 cc: ERROR File = x11.h, Line = 337
A semicolon is expected at this point.
inline void X11InitVideoDisplay(void);
^
[ 100 other messages snipped ]
With C99 enabled, I get this:
cc-3580 c99: ERROR File = system.c, Line = 333
an entity with internal linkage cannot be referenced within an inline function
with external linkage
video.depth = GetRealDepth(depth);
^
[ similar errors in lines 356, 401, 442, 448, 449, 463, 473, 532, 1197 of system.c ]
GetRealDepth() is a static function ("an identifier with internal linkage") and is not allowed
to be referenced from within InitVideoBuffer() ("an inline definition with external linkage").
See chapter 6.7.4 of the C99 standard I found here:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/ ... /n1124.pdf
The errors
cc-3292 c99: ERROR File = x11.h, Line = 337
The extern inline function "X11InitVideoDisplay" was referenced but not
defined.
inline void X11InitVideoDisplay(void);
^
[ similar errors in line 338, 343 - 349 in x11.h]
seem to happen because there is no definition of X11InitVideoDisplay() available in the
translation unit for system.c, only the included declaration in x11.h.
I think
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/techtalk/c99/#inline
shows this rule with the function "NotDefined()".
Similar problems appear in gadget.c and probably other files I have not reached yet.
If you care about compilers other than gcc (which obviously handles "inline" in its own,
non-compliant way), I think the use of "inline" and "static" should be reconsidered.
ciao
Klaus
PS: Is there no decent mailing list? Writing in web forums sucks, IMNSHO.
keyword inline from C99
Moderators: Flumminator, Zomis
-
Flumminator
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:08 pm
- Location: Germany
Hello Klaus, welcome to the R'n'D forum! :-)
> If you care about compilers other than gcc
In fact, I do! (Although I must admit that I currently only test the code against incarnations of gcc, as they are the following: gcc on Linux, cross-win32 gcc on Linux, cross-msdos gcc on Linux, gcc on Max OS X and gcc on Solaris -- the fact that I don't test against other compilers is not ignorance, but a question of availability (or the lack of availaibility) of other compilers. For example, even on a Solaris box I tested R'n'D on, gcc was the "default compiler" when invoking "cc". I will see if I can redefine the environment to use the Sun compiler, to get a better estimate if the code works with other compilers.)
> (which obviously handles "inline" in its own,
> non-compliant way), I think the use of "inline" and "static" should be
> reconsidered.
You are right. I used the "inline" keyword for externally referenced functions merely as a hint for myself that these functions should better be made "real" inline functions (currently they will never be inlined by no compiler on earth anyway). I did not know that this breaks the C99 standard, probably mainly because I get no warning at all from gcc. :-(
I should fix this.
> PS: Is there no decent mailing list? Writing in web forums sucks, IMNSHO.
I agree, I also prefer mailing lists! ;-D
In fact, I already had three mailing lists ready to go (for announcements, user discussions and developers), but then I was convinced that the target audience would strongly prefer a web forum over a mailing list. I wasn't that sure, but then I agreed to the web forum because I got help setting it up and all, saving valuable time. :-) Unfortunately, the first two attempts had problems, so it ended with this third (and final) forum on my own server.
Maybe I should give the mailing lists another try? But there's the danger that it "splits forces" (for example users not knowing where exactly to look for help for their problem) -- especially when considering the fact that the number of people interested in this kind of (retro) game is relatively small anyway... :-/
> If you care about compilers other than gcc
In fact, I do! (Although I must admit that I currently only test the code against incarnations of gcc, as they are the following: gcc on Linux, cross-win32 gcc on Linux, cross-msdos gcc on Linux, gcc on Max OS X and gcc on Solaris -- the fact that I don't test against other compilers is not ignorance, but a question of availability (or the lack of availaibility) of other compilers. For example, even on a Solaris box I tested R'n'D on, gcc was the "default compiler" when invoking "cc". I will see if I can redefine the environment to use the Sun compiler, to get a better estimate if the code works with other compilers.)
> (which obviously handles "inline" in its own,
> non-compliant way), I think the use of "inline" and "static" should be
> reconsidered.
You are right. I used the "inline" keyword for externally referenced functions merely as a hint for myself that these functions should better be made "real" inline functions (currently they will never be inlined by no compiler on earth anyway). I did not know that this breaks the C99 standard, probably mainly because I get no warning at all from gcc. :-(
I should fix this.
> PS: Is there no decent mailing list? Writing in web forums sucks, IMNSHO.
I agree, I also prefer mailing lists! ;-D
In fact, I already had three mailing lists ready to go (for announcements, user discussions and developers), but then I was convinced that the target audience would strongly prefer a web forum over a mailing list. I wasn't that sure, but then I agreed to the web forum because I got help setting it up and all, saving valuable time. :-) Unfortunately, the first two attempts had problems, so it ended with this third (and final) forum on my own server.
Maybe I should give the mailing lists another try? But there's the danger that it "splits forces" (for example users not knowing where exactly to look for help for their problem) -- especially when considering the fact that the number of people interested in this kind of (retro) game is relatively small anyway... :-/
-
Guest
Well, so we can do it all over again :-)Flummi wrote: I compiled RnD once with the Sun-Compiler and radically removed all "inline"s for it to work
If the sentence sounded a bit disparaging I am sorry, this was not intended. Gcc isHolger wrote: In fact, I do! (Although I must admit that I currently only test the code against incarnations of gcc, as they are the following: gcc on Linux, cross-win32 gcc on Linux, cross-msdos gcc on Linux, gcc on Max OS X and gcc on Solaris -- the fact that I don't test against other compilers is not ignorance, but a question of availability (or the lack of availaibility) of other compilers.
universally available and doesn't cost money.
Time permitting, I can help. I have Solaris with a version of Sun Studio 7 (a bit old now).Holger wrote: You are right. I used the "inline" keyword for externally referenced functions merely as a hint for myself that these functions should better be made "real" inline functions (currently they will never be inlined by no compiler on earth anyway). I did not know that this breaks the C99 standard, probably mainly because I get no warning at all from gcc. :-(
I should fix this.
and I can also access a machine running IRIX 6.5 with Mipspro 7.4.
I would not have expected this "strong preference" but it's a valid point, as well as theHolger wrote:
In fact, I already had three mailing lists ready to go (for announcements, user discussions and developers), but then I was convinced that the target audience would strongly prefer a web forum over a mailing list. I wasn't that sure, but then I agreed to the web forum because I got help setting it up and all, saving valuable time. :-) Unfortunately, the first two attempts had problems, so it ended with this third (and final) forum on my own server.
help from other people in setting this forum up.
Isn't it possible to attach a mailing list to one of those forums? Connecting the "programmer's corner" with a development list would probably be sufficient.
But if it's too much work, I think I can adapt to the situation.
ciao
Klaus