Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:40:29 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: build failure |
| |
* KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > > Hi Ingo, > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:00:55 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > -#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) ({ *get_cpu_mask(cpu); }) > > > > > +#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) (*get_cpu_mask(cpu)) > > > > > > > > hm, i'm wondering - is this a compiler bug? > > > > > > Or maybe a deficiency in such an old compiler (v3.4.5) but the fix > > > makes sense anyway, right? > > > > yeah, i was just wondering. > > in linux/README > > COMPILING the kernel: > > - Make sure you have at least gcc 3.2 available. > For more information, refer to Documentation/Changes. > > So, if 3.4.5 is old, Should we change readme?
the fix is simple enough.
but the question is, wont it generate huge artificial stackframes with CONFIG_MAXSMP and NR_CPUS=4096? Maybe it is unable to figure out and simplify the arithmetics there - or something like that.
Ingo
| |