[PATCH] iftop: fix compilation with GCC 10

Rosen Penev rosenp at gmail.com
Fri Jul 17 06:15:40 EDT 2020



> On Jul 17, 2020, at 3:06 AM, Felix Fietkau <nbd at nbd.name> wrote:
> 
> On 2020-07-14 07:43, Rosen Penev wrote:
>> GCC 10 defaults to fno-common, which demains unique defenitions.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp at gmail.com>
>> ---
>> package/network/utils/iftop/Makefile          |  2 +-
>> .../utils/iftop/patches/010-gcc10.patch       | 20 +++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> create mode 100644 package/network/utils/iftop/patches/010-gcc10.patch
>> 
>> diff --git a/package/network/utils/iftop/Makefile b/package/network/utils/iftop/Makefile
>> index 98fe15c8f5..aa467c2876 100644
>> --- a/package/network/utils/iftop/Makefile
>> +++ b/package/network/utils/iftop/Makefile
>> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
>> include $(TOPDIR)/rules.mk
>> 
>> PKG_NAME:=iftop
>> -PKG_RELEASE:=1
>> +PKG_RELEASE:=2
>> 
>> PKG_SOURCE_PROTO:=git
>> PKG_SOURCE_URL:=https://code.blinkace.com/pdw/iftop.git
>> diff --git a/package/network/utils/iftop/patches/010-gcc10.patch b/package/network/utils/iftop/patches/010-gcc10.patch
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000..882565a039
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/package/network/utils/iftop/patches/010-gcc10.patch
>> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
>> +--- a/ui_common.h
>> ++++ b/ui_common.h
>> +@@ -33,12 +33,12 @@ typedef struct host_pair_line_tag {
>> + 
>> + extern options_t options;
>> + 
>> +-sorted_list_type screen_list;
>> +-host_pair_line totals;
>> +-int peaksent, peakrecv, peaktotal;
>> ++static sorted_list_type screen_list;
>> ++static host_pair_line totals;
>> ++static int peaksent, peakrecv, peaktotal;
>> + extern history_type history_totals;
>> +-hash_type* screen_hash;
>> +-hash_type* service_hash;
>> ++static hash_type* screen_hash;
>> ++static hash_type* service_hash;
> Declaring these variables as static in a header file seems wrong to me.
> Shouldn't this be declared as a global variable in one of the .c files
> and extern here?
Sure. static creates a smaller patch though.
> 
> - Felix



More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list