[PATCH] Alternative patch for compiler error (was: [PATCH] Workaround compile error on networking/libiproute/iplink.c)

Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn cristian.ionescu-idbohrn at axis.com
Fri Jul 26 16:24:08 UTC 2013


On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 06:29:48PM +0200, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> > > Ping!
> > >
> > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IFLA_VLAN_PROTOCOL define was introduced with commit
> > > > a7ecbed56bb620a0e8cd79372886d0fdfeb362c8.  gcc 4.8.1 complains.
> > > >
> > > >   CC      networking/libiproute/iplink.o
> > > > networking/libiproute/iplink.c:26:33: error: expected identifier before numeric constant
> > > >  #define IFLA_VLAN_PROTOCOL      5
> > > >                                  ^
> > > > make[1]: *** [networking/libiproute/iplink.o] Error 1
> > >
> > > Does noone else see it?  Is it only me?
> > > I'm not C-literate but, IFLA_VLAN_PROTOCOL comes with:
> > >
> > > 	#include "ip_common.h"
> > >
> > > which:
> > >
> > > 	#include <linux/if_link.h>
> > >
> > > which:
> > >
> > > 	/* VLAN section */
> > >
> > > 	enum {
> > > 		IFLA_VLAN_UNSPEC,
> > > 		IFLA_VLAN_ID,
> > > 		IFLA_VLAN_FLAGS,
> > > 		IFLA_VLAN_EGRESS_QOS,
> > > 		IFLA_VLAN_INGRESS_QOS,
> > > 		IFLA_VLAN_PROTOCOL,
> > > 		__IFLA_VLAN_MAX,
> > > 	};
> > >
> > > Shouldn't:
> > >
> > > 	#undef  IFLA_VLAN_PROTOCOL
> > > 	#define IFLA_VLAN_PROTOCOL      5
> > >
> > > come after that?
> > >
> > > networking/libiproute/iplink.c:25:33: error: expected identifier before numeric constant
> > >  #define IFLA_VLAN_PROTOCOL      5
> > >                                  ^
> > > make[1]: *** [networking/libiproute/iplink.o] Error 1
> >
> > Sorry, I missed your email.
>
> No big deal.
>
> > I just sent a similar patch a couple of seconds ago. Could you please
> > test whether it fixes the problem for you?
>
> Sorry, doesn't apply.  Did you format-patch against a clean master?

Alright, I now realized what you did.  You replaced commit
a7ecbed56bb620a0e8cd79372886d0fdfeb362c8 with your alternative patch.
So, what I've done was to revert a7ecbed56bb620a0e8cd79372886d0fdfeb362c8
and `git apply' your alternative patch (FWIW, `git am' refused to apply).

And yes, that compiled without errors.  I should have mentioned that I run
with debian linux-libc-dev version 3.10.1-1 (besides gcc version 4.8.1-8).


Cheers,

-- 
Cristian


More information about the busybox mailing list