[PATCH] powerpc/boot: Remove duplicate typedefs from libfdt_env.h

[christophe leroy]

Le 19/03/2018 à 17:02, Mark Greer a écrit :
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 09:53:09AM +0100, Christophe LEROY wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 16/03/2018 à 22:54, Mark Greer a écrit :
>>> When building a uImage or zImage using ppc6xx_defconfig and some other
>>> defconfigs, the following error occurs:
>>>
>>>    BOOTCC  arch/powerpc/boot/fdt.o
>>>    In file included from arch/powerpc/boot/fdt.c:51:0:
>>>    ../arch/powerpc/boot/libfdt_env.h:10:13: error: redefinition of typedef 'uint32_t'
>>>    ../arch/powerpc/boot/types.h:21:13: note: previous declaration of 'uint32_t' was here
>>>    ../arch/powerpc/boot/libfdt_env.h:11:13: error: redefinition of typedef 'uint64_t'
>>>    ../arch/powerpc/boot/types.h:22:13: note: previous declaration of 'uint64_t' was here
>>>    ../arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile:210: recipe for target 'arch/powerpc/boot/fdt.o' failed
>>>    make[2]: *** [arch/powerpc/boot/fdt.o] Error 1
>>>
>>> The problem is that commit 656ad58ef19e (powerpc/boot: Add OPAL console
>>> to epapr wrappers) adds typedefs for uint32_t and uint64_t to type.h but
>>> doesn't remove the pre-existing (and now duplicate) typedefs from
>>> libfdt_env.h.  Fix the error by removing the duplicat typedefs from
>>> libfdt_env.h
>>>
>>> CC: David Gibson <david at gibson.dropbear.id.au>
>>> CC: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall at gmail.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Greer <mgreer at animalcreek.com>
>>> ---
>>> Having said all of that, commit 656ad58ef19e (powerpc/boot: Add OPAL
>>> console to epapr wrappers) went into mainline back in 2016 so, AFAICT,
>>> this has been broken since then.  That seems unlikely so I must be
>>> missing something...  Any ideas what that is?
>>
>> I just compiled uImage for ppc6xx_defconfig, and I don't get such error.
>> I looked at what gcc -E outputs, u32 is defined twice but it doesn't seems
>> to bother GCC.
>>
>> What version of GCC do you use ?
>> I tried with 5.4.0 and 4.6.3, both seems to work.
>>
>> Christophe
> 
> Hi Christophe.
> 
> That's interesting.  I would expect an error regardless of version.
> 
> I used an old 4.5.1 gcc that I had laying around (from denx, iirc).
> I'll find a newer one and try it.
> 
> Either way, it seems to me that we should remove the duplicate definitions.
> Do you agree?

Yes I agree. I was however intrigued by your statement that compilation 
should have been broken since 2016.

Christophe

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark
> --
> 

---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus