[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080501232447.GF4354@smtp.west.cox.net>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:24:47 -0700
From: Tom Rini <trini@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, bunk@...nel.org,
venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net, 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, May 01, 2008 at 03:33:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.
I know I'll come off as an ass, but you can't make new ones with 4.1.2?
It's not like we're talking about gcc 2.95/96 fun here :)
--
Tom Rini
--
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