[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:58:14 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please include const-sections into linux-next
On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 17:53 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > I think it's probably a compiler bug. gcc isn't as adept with section
> > annotations as people think it is. This tends to manifest in the
> > non-x86 toolchains because we tend to be using earlier versions.
> >
>
> It compiles fine with my cross-compiler using gcc-4.5.1.
So it's a native toolchain bug in gcc ... the point still stands:
there'll be tons of these throughout non x86 tool chains. You can't
break every arch under the sun just for a dubious mark stuff const.
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists