[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug
    Andrew Morton wrote:
    > Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the section
    > qualifier altogether. How come they don't all break too?

    According to the report I have. Perhaps a bogus section qualifier does
    more damage than an omitted one. I'll get gcc / linker version, but
    this could be a combination of user error, a strange toolchain, and
    perhaps a real bug somewhere.

    > (ARM (at least) in fact does require the section tagging on the declaration as
    > well as the definition, but we've thus far only fixed that in a couple of places
    > which were causing breakage).

    Yes, I was surprised by this as well, and I'm still skeptical about this
    being the real cause. Still, this reportedly fixed the problem, and is
    certainly not a bad thing.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-03-13 07:25    [W:0.020 / U:2.856 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site