Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 4 Jul 2003 02:18:40 +0200 (MEST) | From | Mikael Pettersson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2.5.74] correct gcc bug comment in <linux/spinlock.h> |
| |
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:42:04 +0100, Russell King wrote: >On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:08:11PM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote: >> Linus, >> >> This patch updates include/linux/spinlock.h's comment regarding gcc >> bugs for empty struct initializers, to correctly state that the bug >> is present also in 2.95.x and at least early versions of 2.96 (as >> reported by one Mandrake user). >> >> /Mikael >> >> --- linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h.~1~ 2003-07-03 12:32:46.000000000 +0200 >> +++ linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h 2003-07-03 16:07:59.772534704 +0200 >> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ >> } while (0) >> #else >> /* >> - * gcc versions before ~2.95 have a nasty bug with empty initializers. >> + * gcc versions up to 2.95, and early versions of 2.96, have a nasty bug with empty initializers. >> */ >> #if (__GNUC__ > 2) >> typedef struct { } spinlock_t; > >This also isn't that clear (does it mean up to 2.95.0 but not including >2.95.1 etc.) Also, we don't build with gcc < 2.95 anyway, so there's >no need to mention anything older. This removes the doubt: > >"All gcc 2.95 versions and early versions of gcc 2.96 have a nasty bug with > empty initializers."
Agreed. More precision is better. Updated patch below.
/Mikael
--- linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h.~1~ 2003-07-03 12:32:46.000000000 +0200 +++ linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h 2003-07-04 02:01:05.982375152 +0200 @@ -144,7 +144,8 @@ } while (0) #else /* - * gcc versions before ~2.95 have a nasty bug with empty initializers. + * All gcc 2.95 versions and early versions of 2.96 have a nasty bug + * with empty initializers. */ #if (__GNUC__ > 2) typedef struct { } spinlock_t; - 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/
| |