Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 154179 - #include <asm/atomic.h> in userspace breaks
Summary: #include <asm/atomic.h> in userspace breaks
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: glibc-kernheaders
Version: rawhide
Hardware: ia64
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: David Woodhouse
QA Contact: Brian Brock
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2005-04-08 00:36 UTC by Tom Lane
Modified: 2013-07-03 03:05 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2005-04-09 14:47:18 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tom Lane 2005-04-08 00:36:34 UTC
Description of problem:
The inline ia64_atomic_add and ia64_atomic_sub functions in this header fail to compile under C++, 
because they use "new" as a variable name ... and it's a reserved word in C++.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1.  Try to build mysql on ia64 :=(
Additional info:

Please rename these variables ASAP ... I need to get mysql rebuilt ...

Comment 1 David Woodhouse 2005-04-08 06:00:23 UTC
asm/atomic.c is a kernel-private header and may provide atomic operations which
do not work in userspace. It's perfectly entitled to not compile either. You
must not include it from userspace.

Comment 2 Tom Lane 2005-04-08 06:21:35 UTC
mysql has been depending on that header since 3.x days, and I doubt it's the only such app.

Shall I close all future mysql bugs as blocked by this one?

I'm not going to accept "I can't be bothered to respell 'new'" as an answer.

Comment 3 David Woodhouse 2005-04-08 06:39:20 UTC
There's never been any guarantee that if you include this kernel-private header
it'll build. And there's _certainly_ never been any guarantee that if it builds,
what it does will actually be atomic in _userspace_.

Seriously, if we change this header it'll just be to add

Comment 4 David Woodhouse 2005-04-09 14:47:18 UTC
I've had code which does *(((uint16_t *)p)++) for longer than that. Should I
file a compiler bug because it stopped working?

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.