gcc的版本太新导致之前的code会报错，有两种解决： 1.就是用gcc-4.7 2.修改code: cfns.gperf和cfns.h 将这一段code分别merge入两个文件 #ifdef __GNUC_STDC_INLINE__ __attribute__ ((__gnu_inline__)) #endif 达到以下效果：* cfns.gperf [__GNUC__, __GNUC_STDC_INLINE__]: Apply the__gnu_inline__ attribute.* cfns.h: Regenerated. ---gcc/cp/cfns.gperf | 3 +++gcc/cp/cfns.h | 3 +++2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)diff --git a/gcc/cp/cfns.gperf b/gcc/cp/cfns.gperf index 68acd3d..953262f 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/cfns.gperf +++ b/gcc/cp/cfns.gperf @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ __inlinestatic unsigned int hash (const char *, unsigned int);#ifdef __GNUC____inline +#ifdef __GNUC_STDC_INLINE__ +__attribute__ ((__gnu_inline__)) +#endif#endifconst char * libc_name_p (const char *, unsigned int);%} diff --git a/gcc/cp/cfns.h b/gcc/cp/cfns.h index 1c6665d..6d00c0e 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/cfns.h +++ b/gcc/cp/cfns.h @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ __inlinestatic unsigned int hash (const char *, unsigned int);#ifdef __GNUC____inline +#ifdef __GNUC_STDC_INLINE__ +__attribute__ ((__gnu_inline__)) +#endif#endifconst char * libc_name_p (const char *, unsigned int);/* maximum key range = 391, duplicates = 0 */ -- 2.4.4
原文：
Since the 3.0.3 release of gperf (made in May 2007), the generated func has had the gnu_inline attribute applied to it. The gcc source however has not been updated to include that which has lead to a mismatch. In practice, this hasn't been an issue for two reasons:
(1) Before gcc-5, the default standard was (gnu) C89, and gcc does not warn or throw an error in this mode.
(2) Starting with gcc-4.8, the compiler driver used to build gcc was changed to C++, and g++ does not warn or throw an error in this mode. This error does show up though when using gcc-5 to build gcc-4.7 or older as then the default is (gnu) C11 and the C compiler driver is used.
That failure looks like: In file included from .../gcc-4.7.4/gcc/cp/except.c:990:0: cfns.gperf: At top level: cfns.gperf:101:1: error: 'gnu_inline' attribute present on 'libc_name_p' cfns.gperf:26:14: error: but not here Whether the compiler should always emit this error regardless of the active standard or compiler driver is debatable (I think it should be consistent -- either always do it or never do it). 2015-08-06 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00375.html