From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:03:17 +1000 Message-ID: <20080729180317.94c64634.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20080729162300.733b3e09.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080729080055.GA28916@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Tue__29_Jul_2008_18_03_17_+1000_zO=OK9vmVfW5TShh" Return-path: Received: from chilli.pcug.org.au ([203.10.76.44]:40387 "EHLO smtps.tip.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753172AbYG2ID1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:03:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080729080055.GA28916@elte.hu> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: David Miller , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Andrew Morton , Linus , Mike Travis --Signature=_Tue__29_Jul_2008_18_03_17_+1000_zO=OK9vmVfW5TShh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ingo, On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:00:55 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > -#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) ({ *get_cpu_mask(cpu); }) > > +#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) (*get_cpu_mask(cpu)) >=20 > hm, i'm wondering - is this a compiler bug? Or maybe a deficiency in such an old compiler (v3.4.5) but the fix makes sense anyway, right? --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ --Signature=_Tue__29_Jul_2008_18_03_17_+1000_zO=OK9vmVfW5TShh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkiOzsUACgkQjjKRsyhoI8zHFACfT6Uv28/5Y/xQOZa4sEphVVE8 8JMAn1gTootRx/I5maK5VNPM3Mwza0i4 =IFv9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Tue__29_Jul_2008_18_03_17_+1000_zO=OK9vmVfW5TShh--