Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 May 2008 00:21:39 +0000 | From | "Justin Mattock" <> | Subject | Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem |
| |
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:24:47 -0700 > Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 03:33:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:27:26 -0700 (PDT) > > > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 1 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I see only the following choices: > > > > > > - remove __weak and replace all current usages > > > > > > - move all __weak functions into own files, and ensure that also happens > > > > > > for future usages > > > > > > - #error for gcc 4.1.{0,1} > > > > > > > > > > Can we detect the {0,1}? __GNUC_EVEN_MORE_MINOR__? > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Drat. There go my alpha, i386, m68k, s390, sparc and powerpc > > > cross-compilers. Vagard, save me! > > > > > > Meanwhile I guess I can locally unpatch that patch. > > > > I know I'll come off as an ass, but you can't make new ones with 4.1.2? > > It's not like we're talking about gcc 2.95/96 fun here :) > > Honestly, I nearly died when I built all those cross-compilers. Sooooooo > many combinations of gcc/binutils/glibc refused to work for obscure > reasons. Compilation on x86_64 just didn't work at all and I ended up > having to build everything on a slow i386 box, etc, etc. The stream of > email to Dan got increasingly strident ;) > > I think crosstool has become a lot better since then, judging from the ease > with which Jens was able to spin up the powerpc compiler, but the trauma > was a life-long thing. > > Vegard has been making noises about (finally!) preparing and maintaining a > decent set of cross-compilers for us. It would be a great service (begs). > > -- > 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/ >
I hate to jump in like this, but I noticed something while compiling madwifi as well with gcc, I'm wondering if this is related to the above: /home/name/Desktop/madwifi-trunk-r3574-20080426/Makefile:50 Makefile.inc: no such file or directory even though the files exists,
Makefile.inc98: scripts/get_arch.mk: no such file or directory Makefile.inc:102 ath_hal/ah_target.inc: no such file or directory Makefile.inc:163 *** TARGET i386-elf is invalid, invalid target are: . Stop. make[1] *** [modules] Error 2
After modifying the Makefiles you're left with ***TARGET i386-elf problem
regards;
-- Justin P. Mattock
| |