/include/sys/mount.h line 60 has MS_BIND = 4096, /* Bind directory at different place. */ when it should be MS_BIND = 4096 /* Bind directory at different place. */ As a final value in an enum gcc coughs at the comma. Looking at the git tree online this is still present though I tripped over it when using uclibc 0.9.31 as a part of buildroot2010.11.
Hi, which gcc version and which compiler options used to compile ? Please, could you post your error log ?
I am using buildroot-2010.11 built gcc 4.3.5. I have set gcc -pedantic -pedantic-errors -Wall -Werror for belt and braces. I believe it is the -pedantic-errors that catches the issue here. The error reported is: Building file: ../main.c Invoking: GCC C Compiler i486-linux-gcc -I/home/apmdev/dx/buildroot-2010.11/output/staging/usr/include -O0 -g3 -pedantic -pedantic-errors -Wall -Werror -c -fmessage-length=0 -Wno-long-long -MMD -MP -MF"main.d" -MT"main.d" -o"main.o" "../main.c" In file included from ../main.c:11: /home/apmdev/dx/buildroot-2010.11/output/staging/usr/include/sys/mount.h:60: error: comma at end of enumerator list make: *** [main.o] Error 1
(In reply to comment #2) > I am using buildroot-2010.11 built gcc 4.3.5. > I have set gcc -pedantic -pedantic-errors -Wall -Werror for belt and braces. > I believe it is the -pedantic-errors that catches the issue here. First 4.3.x is inadequate with these flags, if anything then use 4.6.0 or 4.5.3 (at the time of this writing) with -Wall and, if you are masochistic, -Werror. Second that flags are not sane, just don't do that ;)
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > I am using buildroot-2010.11 built gcc 4.3.5. > > I have set gcc -pedantic -pedantic-errors -Wall -Werror for belt and braces. > > I believe it is the -pedantic-errors that catches the issue here. > First 4.3.x is inadequate with these flags, if anything then use 4.6.0 or 4.5.3 I don't understand what you mean by inadequate. The gcc 4.3.5 user manual describes these options, gcc 4.3.5 seems to work with these options. > (at the time of this writing) with -Wall and, if you are masochistic, -Werror. > Second that flags are not sane, just don't do that ;) I appreciate that you might not recommend these flags ;) but they are valid, if restrictive, and a legitimate way of using gcc, are they not?