![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andrew Morton wrote: > Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the section > qualifier altogether. How come they don't all break too? > According to the report I have. Perhaps a bogus section qualifier does more damage than an omitted one. I'll get gcc / linker version, but this could be a combination of user error, a strange toolchain, and perhaps a real bug somewhere. > (ARM (at least) in fact does require the section tagging on the declaration as > well as the definition, but we've thus far only fixed that in a couple of places > which were causing breakage). > Yes, I was surprised by this as well, and I'm still skeptical about this being the real cause. Still, this reportedly fixed the problem, and is certainly not a bad thing. Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-03-13 07:25 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||