Re: [Libunwind-devel] Error compiling libunwind 1.0.1 in a linux/ia64

[Arun Sharma]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Harald Servat <address@hidden> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>
> I was compiling libunwind 1.0.1 in a linux/ia64 machine when I found the
> following error:
>
> gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../include  -I../include
> - -I../include/tdep-ia64 -I. -D_GNU_SOURCE -DNDEBUG  -g -O2 -fexceptions
> - -Wall -Wsign-compare -MT ptrace/_UPT_find_proc_info.o -MD -MP -MF
> $depbase.Tpo -c -o ptrace/_UPT_find_proc_info.o
> ptrace/_UPT_find_proc_info.c &&\
> mv -f $depbase.Tpo $depbase.Po
> ptrace/_UPT_find_proc_info.c:102: error: conflicting types for
> ‘_UPTi_find_unwind_table’
> ptrace/_UPT_internal.h:72: error: previous declaration of
> ‘_UPTi_find_unwind_table’ was here
> make[2]: *** [ptrace/_UPT_find_proc_info.o] Error 1

This came from commit b317cb48296ca3837b403782c317f6214a54a7fa.
I'll fix this one up. Ken: let me know if there is a good reason to
change the return type to int.

>
> Looking at _UPT_internal.h (line 72), I guess that the returning type is
> not as defined in _UPT_find_proc_info.c (line 102). I'd bet on the type
> on the .c file, so I changed the header file and when I reran gmake I
> encountered the next error
>
> gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../include  -I../include
> - -I../include/tdep-ia64 -I. -D_GNU_SOURCE -DNDEBUG  -g -O2 -fexceptions
> - -Wall -Wsign-compare -MT ptrace/_UPT_get_dyn_info_list_addr.o -MD -MP
> - -MF $depbase.Tpo -c -o ptrace/_UPT_get_dyn_info_list_addr.o
> ptrace/_UPT_get_dyn_info_list_addr.c &&\
> mv -f $depbase.Tpo $depbase.Po
> ptrace/_UPT_get_dyn_info_list_addr.c: In function ‘get_list_addr’:
> ptrace/_UPT_get_dyn_info_list_addr.c:65: error: too few arguments to
> function ‘_UPTi_find_unwind_table’
> gmake[2]: *** [ptrace/_UPT_get_dyn_info_list_addr.o] Error 1
>
> Here, there's a missing argument (IP, Instruction Pointer?). After
> looking at the code, I found that IP is not used in IA64, so I passed
> (unw_word_t) 0
>

8ee7b176 didn't change all callers. This sounds like a safe change
too. I'll make both of these.

 -Arun