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]

Date:	Thu, 1 May 2008 16:59:45 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tom Rini <trini@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	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@...il.com
Subject: Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem

On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:24:47 -0700
Tom Rini <trini@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:

> 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 :)

Honestly, I nearly died when I built all those cross-compilers.  Sooooooo
many combinations of gcc/binutils/glibc refused to work for obscure
reasons.  Compilation on x86_64 just didn't work at all and I ended up
having to build everything on a slow i386 box, etc, etc.  The stream of
email to Dan got increasingly strident ;)

I think crosstool has become a lot better since then, judging from the ease
with which Jens was able to spin up the powerpc compiler, but the trauma
was a life-long thing.

Vegard has been making noises about (finally!) preparing and maintaining a
decent set of cross-compilers for us.  It would be a great service (begs).

--
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/