lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem
    On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 03:35:15PM -0700, Venki Pallipadi wrote:
    > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 03:27:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    [snip]
    > > It's __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__, I believe.
    > >
    > > So yes, we can distinguish 4.1.2 (good, and very common) from 4.1.{0,1}
    > > (bad, and rather uncommon).
    > >
    > > And yes, considering that 4.1.1 (and even more so 4.1.0) should be rare to
    > > begin with, I think it's better to just not support it.
    > >
    >
    > Not sure whether #error on gcc 4.1.{0.1} is the right thing as I found atleast
    > one distro gcc which says itself as 4.1.1, do not exhibit the problem as it
    > most likely has fix backported.

    Really? At the time this was a very uncommon thing (hence the initial
    it's not a bug, you just didn't use the right flags) comments. I
    suppose it's possible of course that some distro took a 4.1 snapshot and
    called it 4.1.1.

    > Putting all weak functions in one file is something Suresh and I considered
    > before sending this patch. But, looking at various users of __weak, that
    > single file did not look very appropriate.

    Indeed. I suspect that even if you go so far as to do a single patch
    per "feature", it's gonna be a lotta stuff.

    --
    Tom Rini


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-05-02 01:25    [W:2.460 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site