[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080501153349.f4537ec7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 15:33:49 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: 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, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Subject: Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem
On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
Drat. There go my alpha, i386, m68k, s390, sparc and powerpc
cross-compilers. Vagard, save me!
Meanwhile I guess I can locally unpatch that patch.
--
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