Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 May 2008 16:23:34 -0700 | From | Tom Rini <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |