michelcandido / btstack

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/btstack
0 stars 0 forks source link

Head fails to build on Linux #196

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Looks like a lot of improvements since I last checked in, even the config 
process works.

But the current head fails to build on Linux due to compiler warnings being 
forced as errors.

Attached is a quick patch which gets it going for now....
Simon.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mungew...@gmail.com on 29 Sep 2011 at 3:43

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
It will build without '-W-error', but that's not the point :-)

Log showing 'warnings' attached.
--
simon@womble:~/btstack-git-svn$ gcc --version
gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.5.2-8ubuntu4) 4.5.2
Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
--

Original comment by mungew...@gmail.com on 29 Sep 2011 at 5:35

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
thanks for checking. I'll check those, too.

Please note: I wouldn't recommend the automake based build system for embedded 
builds. See the MSP-EXP430... and especially the "config.h" file there.

Original comment by matthias.ringwald@gmail.com on 29 Sep 2011 at 7:11

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
this wasn't really for embedded, just using Linux as a test platform. 
Regardless GCC would throw the same warnings/errors anyway.

Thanks for the work you've done on this, looks like it's moved on nicely since 
the summer.
Simon

Original comment by mungew...@gmail.com on 29 Sep 2011 at 8:46

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
The USB transport was also throwing errors, revised patch attached.

It also occurs to me that you and I are using 'EMBEDDED' to mean slightly 
different things; You are focus on embedded systems such as a micro, whereas I 
am thinking where the deamon and client are just combined into one entity.

For me there is no reason why a single binary would not be built on a posix 
capable system... is there a better #define we could use to indicate the middle 
ground?

Simon.

Original comment by mungew...@gmail.com on 5 Oct 2011 at 6:17

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Thanks for the patches.

Sorry for stealing EMBEDDED :) - it did fit well in my porting to embedded 
systems. Please use "STANDALONE" for binaries that contain an app and the stack.

Original comment by matthias.ringwald@gmail.com on 5 Oct 2011 at 6:26

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
reviewed and applied patches. compiles in linux fine now. r1529

Original comment by matthias.ringwald@gmail.com on 8 Oct 2011 at 4:59