[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:0.055 / U:0.676 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site