[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160122154358.e6491d6a963747b449731eb9@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:43:58 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
keescook@...omium.org, mingo@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
mpe@...erman.id.au, mmarek@...e.cz, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
arnd@...db.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kallsyms: add support for relative offsets in
kallsyms address table
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:34:28 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > Support for the above is enabled by default for all architectures except
> > IA-64, whose symbols are too far apart to capture in this manner.
>
> scripts/kallsyms.c: In function 'record_relative_base':
> scripts/kallsyms.c:744: error: 'ULLONG_MAX' undeclared (first use in this function)
> scripts/kallsyms.c:744: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> scripts/kallsyms.c:744: error: for each function it appears in.)
>
> That's with (ancient) glibc-headers-2.5-3. It appears that limits.h's
> ULLONG_MAX requires "#ifdef __USE_ISOC99". I'm not sure what's the
> correct way of turning this on.
Actually, how about we replace it with -1ULL and get on with life.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists