This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] binutils/nm.c: Skip sbrk() under Darwin when _POSIX_C_SOURCE not defined
- From: Chen Gang <gang dot chen dot 5i5j at gmail dot com>
- To: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>
- Cc: amodra at gmail dot com, binutils at sourceware dot org, markus at trippelsdorf dot de, nickc at redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 22:06:33 +0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] binutils/nm.c: Skip sbrk() under Darwin when _POSIX_C_SOURCE not defined
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5416E7A2 dot 7070602 at gmail dot com> <D5E1619B-77A8-4782-87B1-BDF34E3DF55D at adacore dot com> <5416EA1F dot 6000508 at gmail dot com> <48DF742F-6FAF-42A3-8CD3-E7CAFC841852 at adacore dot com> <541799AD dot 5020909 at gmail dot com>
On 09/16/2014 10:00 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 9/15/14 21:54, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> On 15 Sep 2014, at 15:31, Chen Gang <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/15/14 21:21, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>>> On 15 Sep 2014, at 15:20, Chen Gang <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>> --- a/binutils/nm.c
>>>>> +++ b/binutils/nm.c
>>>>> @@ -1698,6 +1698,7 @@ main (int argc, char **argv)
>>>>> END_PROGRESS (program_name);
>>>>> #ifdef HAVE_SBRK
>>>>> +#if !defined (__DARWIN_C_LEVEL) || defined (_POSIX_C_SOURCE)
>>>>> if (show_stats)
>>>>> char *lim = (char *) sbrk (0);
>>>>> @@ -1705,6 +1706,7 @@ main (int argc, char **argv)
>>>>> non_fatal (_("data size %ld"), (long) (lim - (char *) &environ));
>>>> Enable code on machine specific macro is not recommended by the GNU standard.
>>>> Also note that sbrk is also used by gas.
>>>> Maybe the test of sbrk in configure should be done using warnings flags.
>>>> (the work-around is to configure using --disable-werror).
>>> Originally, I really tried to do that, but I found that HAVE_SBRK really
>>> need be true under Darwin, but may report warning.
>> Can you clarify that ? IIRC, the only use of sbrk within binutils is to
>> compute the amount of memory used.
In honest, for me, my own fixing way is really not quite well (although
still acceptable), but I can not find another better ways or it.
So welcome any additional ideas, suggestions or completions for it.
> Yeah, in "binutils/binutils", what you said is reasonable to me.
> But in "bintuils" (include as, ld, gdb ...), most of sub-systems content
> "HAVE_SBRK", and some of them not enable 'Werror'.
> Originally I tried "binutils/binutils" in "binutils/binutils/configure"
> (but not send patch). But after I thought of again, for me:
> - 'HAVE_SBRK' express whether have sbrk(), do not care about warnings.
> - Multiple sub-systems use 'HAVE_SBRK', some can bare the warnings.
> - If the sub-systems can not bare warnings, it needs additional trying
> (e.g binutils/binutils), and still keep the standard checking for
> 'HAVE_SBRK' in related configure.
Open share and attitude like air water and life which God blessed