[Home]

Summary:ASTERISK-03901: [patch] app_queue compilation broken on gcc 2.95
Reporter:Tilghman Lesher (tilghman)Labels:
Date Opened:2005-04-08 16:18:46Date Closed:2008-01-15 15:31:15.000-0600
Priority:BlockerRegression?No
Status:Closed/CompleteComponents:Applications/app_queue
Versions:Frequency of
Occurrence
Related
Issues:
Environment:Attachments:( 0) 20050408__queue_fix.diff.txt
Description:Due to the unnamed structure introduced in revision 1.129, app_queue no longer compiles with gcc 2.95.  The solution is simple:  the unnamed structure enclosing the bit fields is unnecessary.

****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ******

Disclaimer on file.
Comments:By: Clod Patry (junky) 2005-04-08 18:14:28

Can we just put a name to that struct instead?
By: nick (nick) 2005-04-08 18:35:29

Or get a compiler from this century... :-)
By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2005-04-08 19:16:20

From UPGRADE.txt  ...

Compiling:

* The Asterisk 1.2 source code now uses C language features
 supported only by 'modern' C compilers.  Generally, this means GCC
 version 3.0 or higher, although some GCC 2.96 releases will also
 work.  Some non-GCC compilers that support C99 and the common GCC
 extensions (including anonymous structures and unions) will also
 work.  All releases of GCC 2.95 do _not_ have the requisite feature
 support; systems using that compiler will need to be upgraded to
 a more recent compiler release.
By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2005-04-08 20:02:04

Yes, but this is the only thing in CVS-HEAD which will not compile under GCC 2.95.  It's kind of silly to say that "we have features that require GCC3" when this is the only issue in CVS.  Isn't a two-line problem worth fixing?
By: Clod Patry (junky) 2005-04-08 20:09:57

If it's only that patch that make HEAD compiling with gcc 2.95, i think we can go with it.
By: nick (nick) 2005-04-08 20:45:14

This _is_ the 1.2 codebase however--at some point (I'm not sure it should be on this bug, but it has got to be somewhere) we must draw a line in the sand.

Nick
By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2005-04-08 21:23:34

At this time, we have no real need to be drawing lines in the sand, unless we are adamant about producing additional code forks outside of the main tree (one has already been forked).

If there's a real technical reason why gcc 2.95 ought not to be supported, I'd like to hear it, because all I've heard so far is "it's too old".
By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2005-04-09 13:55:51

I think it's time to move past 2.95 but it's also not necessary to needlessly break it for effectively no advantage.  I'll put this in, but I definitely am not promising that we will work to maintain compatibility with 2.95 in the future.
By: Digium Subversion (svnbot) 2008-01-15 15:31:15.000-0600

Repository: asterisk
Revision: 5439

U   trunk/apps/app_queue.c

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r5439 | markster | 2008-01-15 15:31:15 -0600 (Tue, 15 Jan 2008) | 2 lines

Fix needless queue breakage for 2.95 (bug ASTERISK-3901) but this DOES NOT MEAN WE WILL WORK TOWARDS 2.95 IN THE FUTURE!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk?view=rev&revision=5439