Created attachment 319370 [details]
Log of failing build.
While emerging app-mobilephone/obexpushd-9999 from the my wtk overlay I ran into:
cd /var/tmp/portage/app-mobilephone/obexpushd-9999/work/obexpushd-9999_build/src && /usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -D_GNU_SOURCE -DUSE_LIBGCRYPT -DHAVE_SDPLIB -DUSB_GADGET_SUPPORT -DENABLE_TCPWRAP -DUSE_XATTR -DOPENOBEX_TCPOBEX=1 -DDEFINITIONS -DNDEBUG -O2 -march=native -pipe -std=c99 -I/var/tmp/portage/app-mobilephone/obexpushd-9999/work/obexpushd-9999/src -I/var/tmp/portage/app-mobilephone/obexpushd-9999/work/obexpushd-9999_build/src -o CMakeFiles/obexpushd.dir/obexpushd.c.o -c /var/tmp/portage/app-mobilephone/obexpushd-9999/work/obexpushd-9999/src/obexpushd.c
In file included from /var/tmp/portage/app-mobilephone/obexpushd-9999/work/obexpushd-9999/src/obexpushd.c:18:0:
/usr/include/bluetooth/bluetooth.h: In function ‘bt_get_le64’:
/usr/include/bluetooth/bluetooth.h:159:9: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before ‘typeof’
/usr/include/bluetooth/bluetooth.h:159:9: error: called object ‘typeof(__p)’ is not a function
/usr/include/bluetooth/bluetooth.h:159:9: error: ‘struct <anonymous>’ has no member named ‘__v’
This seems to be the same as Debian's 661879 , which they fixed by patching bluez .
Created attachment 319372 [details]
Created attachment 319374 [details, diff]
Patch from Debian (http://patch-tracker.debian.org/patch/series/view/bluez/4.101-1/09_fix_ftbfs_with_c99.patch)
I can confirm that the patch does fix the issue for me.
The patch made it into the upstream mailing list back in March, but doesn't seem to be included in their repository yet. I've bumped them, and will report back on what I hear.
It could be a gcc bug per:
reassigning to pacho (thanks!) since I stepped down as maintainer for bluez
(In reply to comment #4)
> It could be a gcc bug per:
But no idea about what gcc version includes a fix for that
(In reply to comment #3)
> I've bumped them, and will report back on what I hear.
Thanks Pacho for pushing this forward! Upstream threads (so others don't need to dig through Gmane):
Still valid with gcc-4.6.3?
(In reply to comment #8)
> Still valid with gcc-4.6.3?
Yeah, I got the same error using gcc-4.6.3 and bluez-4.101-r5.
And with gcc-4.7.3-r1?
(In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #10)
> And with gcc-4.7.3-r1?
I'll let you know once something in the 4.7 series stabilizes ;).
It's in progress :)