Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

lib/attr.h: use C23 attributes only with gcc >= 10 #1172

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 8, 2025

Conversation

kanavin
Copy link

@kanavin kanavin commented Jan 7, 2025

These are not available on earlier versions and builds break there.

@alejandro-colomar
Copy link
Collaborator

These are not available on earlier versions and builds break there.

Hmmm, I was wondering why no-one had complained about them. I hoped that all users would have a recent enough GCC. Where are you building shadow that triggers this?

I'm fine with the change, I'm just curious. :)

Thanks for the patch!

Copy link
Collaborator

@alejandro-colomar alejandro-colomar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>

@kanavin
Copy link
Author

kanavin commented Jan 8, 2025

Hmmm, I was wondering why no-one had complained about them. I hoped that all users would have a recent enough GCC. Where are you building shadow that triggers this?

Ubuntu 20.04 which has gcc 9.

These are not available on earlier versions and builds break there.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex@linutronix.de>
@alejandro-colomar
Copy link
Collaborator

BTW, is this a regression compared to 4.16? Or did 4.16 also not build there?

I guess we should release 4.17.2. Since the master branch is still in a good state, I'll let @hallyn release that one.

I'll merge this patch now. Thanks!

@alejandro-colomar alejandro-colomar merged commit 15524dd into shadow-maint:master Jan 8, 2025
9 checks passed
@kanavin
Copy link
Author

kanavin commented Jan 8, 2025

BTW, is this a regression compared to 4.16? Or did 4.16 also not build there?

4.16 was fine. I think the problem appeared here:
060b084

@alejandro-colomar
Copy link
Collaborator

BTW, is this a regression compared to 4.16? Or did 4.16 also not build there?

4.16 was fine. I think the problem appeared here: 060b084

Ahh, yep, the others were covered in version checks already. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants