Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:11:57 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: [BKPATCH] Read-Copy Update 2.5 | From | "David S. Miller" <> |
| |
From: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:41:52 +0530
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 10:24:30AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT > > +/* Fake initialization to work around compiler breakage */ > > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic_t[2], rcu_preempt_cntr) = > > + {ATOMIC_INIT(0), ATOMIC_INIT(0)}; > > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic_t, *curr_preempt_cntr) = NULL; > > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic_t, *next_preempt_cntr) = NULL; > > Also static I assume? So, only statics are broken by gcc 2.95, right ?
I think it gets both static and non-static wrong.
Why don't we just specify that DEFINE_PER_CPU()'s must have explicit initializers then we never need to think about this ever again. - 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/
|  |