i386/41930: declaration clash for ffs() and ${CXX}

[Ceri Davies]

The following reply was made to PR i386/41930; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Ceri Davies <ceri at FreeBSD.org>
To: FreeBSD Gnats Submit <freebsd-gnats-submit at FreeBSD.org>
Cc:  
Subject: Re: i386/41930: declaration clash for ffs() and ${CXX}
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 18:56:05 +0100

 Adding to audit trail, from misfiled PR i386/52474:
 
 Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:30:32 -0400
 From: Mike Barcroft <mike at FreeBSD.org>
 Message-Id: <20030520093032.C84644 at espresso.bsdmike.org>
 References: <200208230950.g7N9oXDs000777 at terrorfish.uni.stoert.net> <20030520074754.GA95715 at i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
 
  [Added BDE to CC list.]
  
  Volker Stolz <stolz at i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
  > On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 11:50:33AM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
  > > >Description:
  > > 	when including both <string.h> and <machine/cpufunc.h> from a C++
  > > 	source, gcc yields a declaration error:
  > > 
  > > From: Edwin Groothuis <edwin at mavetju.org>
  > >  I ran into the same problem today with ports/audio/mpmf20.
  > >  machine/cpufunc.h does set a flag if it has has been processed:
  > >  HAVE_INLINE_FFS (line 106 of /usr/include/machine/cpufunc.h).
  > >  
  > >  So strings.h could be modified  [...]
  > 
  > I've just been bit by another instance of this (hpoj-printer driver
  > port). Are there any intentions to fix this RSN? Is there somebody
  > specific who could be contacted about this issue?
  > I'm cc:ing mike@ who last touched strings.h.
  
  IIRC, the conclusion last time this was brought up was that
  <machine/cpufunc.h> is an implementation detail and should never be
  used by anything except the implementation.
  
  Best regards,
  Mike Barcroft