linux-kernel - Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} _

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805011525460.5994@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 1 May 2008 15:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, trini@...nel.crashing.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem



On Thu, 1 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > I see only the following choices:
> > - remove __weak and replace all current usages
> > - move all __weak functions into own files, and ensure that also happens
> >   for future usages
> > - #error for gcc 4.1.{0,1}
> 
> Can we detect the {0,1}?  __GNUC_EVEN_MORE_MINOR__?

It's __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__, I believe.

So yes, we can distinguish 4.1.2 (good, and very common) from 4.1.{0,1} 
(bad, and rather uncommon).

And yes, considering that 4.1.1 (and even more so 4.1.0) should be rare to 
begin with, I think it's better to just not support it.

			Linus
--
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/