Actions
Bug #580
closed
'const const char' declarations break build with recent GCC
Start date:
2017-07-25
Due date:
% Done:
100%
Estimated time:
Patch Available:
Yes
Found in Versions:
Confirmed:
Yes
Branch:
Security:
No
Help Needed:
No
Description
Current bip fails to build with recent GCC versions and default compiler flags:
src/log.c:442:37: error: duplicate 'const' declaration specifier [-Werror=duplicate-decl-specifier]
void log_part(log_t *logdata, const const char *ircmask, const char *channel,
^~~~~
src/log.c:443:9: error: duplicate 'const' declaration specifier [-Werror=duplicate-decl-specifier]
const const char *message)
^~~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
Indeed there are two
const const char declarations in src/log.c log_part function. I'm attaching a patch that fixes these.
Updated by Adam Williamson over 8 years ago
Having trouble attaching a file, so here's the patch in-line, it's pretty trivial:
From 7e2d06a1d06f22f807ffcdac2b132b1f08e21f95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:08:38 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Fix some 'const const char' declarations
That's one two many consts...recent GCC blips on this.
---
src/log.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/log.c b/src/log.c
index 26fa24d..457337a 100644
--- a/src/log.c
+++ b/src/log.c
@@ -440,8 +440,8 @@ void log_join(log_t *logdata, const char *ircmask, const char *channel)
log_write(logdata, channel, logdata->buffer);
}
-void log_part(log_t *logdata, const const char *ircmask, const char *channel,
- const const char *message)
+void log_part(log_t *logdata, const char *ircmask, const char *channel,
+ const char *message)
{
if (message)
snprintf(logdata->buffer, LOGLINE_MAXLEN,
--
2.13.3
Updated by Pierre-Louis Bonicoli over 8 years ago
- Status changed from New to Resolved
- Assignee set to Pierre-Louis Bonicoli
- Target version set to 0.9.0
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
- Confirmed changed from No to Yes
- Security set to No
- Help Needed set to No
I was able to reproduce using gcc 7.1.0.
Patch committed (2ecd82f0112e6d57e8651296d624975aa56e03a4), many thanks !
Actions