Bug 38131

Summary: can't compile software using inline functions
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Need Real Name <mphm.janssen>
Component: gccAssignee: Jakub Jelinek <jakub>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.1CC: bjodom, david.russell, djuran, mbga8csh
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-10-01 22:08:46 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Need Real Name 2001-04-27 22:06:24 UTC 
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2 i686; Nav)


can't compile lame,avifile : both have in common the use of inline function
for optimization.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.download avifile 0.53.5 or CVS 0.6 or lame 3.87/3.88
2.Try to compile
3.In case it does, the executable is not functional, or it just doesn't
compile.
	

Actual Results:  lame segfualts, avifile just can't compile.
After removing inline functions in avifile 0.53.5, avifile compiles and
works. lame I didn't get to work yet.

Expected Results:  It should compile with inline functions.

thanks for any kind of solution,
Marcel Janssen
Comment 1 Chris Horler 2001-05-03 09:48:37 UTC 
avifile 0.6 cvs now compiles, but the binary is useless - the inline functions 
don't work and they control some things such as sound; video without sound 
ain't much.  Removing the inline functions as pointed out on the avifile 
mailing list is not the 'correct' solution.
Comment 2 Richard Henderson 2004-10-01 22:08:46 UTC 
No specific test case.  Since lame 3.96 is happily on my machine, I
assume this either works with current gcc or has been worked around.
In either case, lame 3.87 doesn't seem to exist anymore, so I can't
go back and test the original problem.
Comment 3 Richard Henderson 2004-10-01 22:55:29 UTC 
*** Bug 46585 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Richard Henderson 2004-10-01 23:07:21 UTC 
*** Bug 49602 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***