netfilter buglog - Apr 2003 - [Bug 82] iptables doesn't compile if no optimization flags are set

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82

laforge@netfilter.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rusty@netfilter.org
           Severity|normal                      |minor
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Priority|P2                          |P5



------- Additional Comments From aliz@gentoo.org  2003-04-19 13:34 -------
Created an attachment (id=20)
Patch used by Gentoo


------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org  2003-04-19 13:57 -------
This bug is well known for about two years.  However, we never thought that
anybody was going to use it without optimization.

I am currently unable to state if your fix is correct.  The Issue is that we
explicitly inserted those #ifndef __OPTIMIZE__ sections to make it work when no
optimization is used.  It was somehow related to gcc not accepting inline
function declarations, if optimization was turned off.

Rusty: Do you remember what the exact reason for those sections was?



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82

rusty@netfilter.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX



------- Additional Comments From rusty@netfilter.org  2003-05-02 10:45 -------
Older kernels used "extern inline" instead of static inline.  It
changed
somewhere between 2.4.0 and 2.4.9, so we can't accept this patch in case
someone
compiles without optimization against 2.4.0 headers.

Rusty.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82

laforge@netfilter.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |



------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org  2003-05-02 10:59 -------
Rusty: this is a strictly userspace issue.  I don't see how something in the
kernel could be affected by the patch.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82





------- Additional Comments From rusty@netfilter.org  2003-05-02 11:10 -------
To compile iptables, you use kernel headers.  This is where ipt_get_target comes
from.  If those are old headers (eg. 2.4.0), ipt_get_target was declared
"extern
inline", so without optimization it didn't link (extern inline is a gcc
extension which says if you can't inline it, don't create a copy).

Sorry for my overly curt response.
Rusty.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82

laforge@netfilter.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX



------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org  2003-05-03 14:19 -------
oh, sorry. I forgot to notice that the inline function is provided by kernel
headers.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.