[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080502211942.GE5838@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 00:19:42 +0300
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, trini@...nel.crashing.org,
mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 02:09:53PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> A workaround here is the wrong solution since this isn't the only place
>> that suffers from this issue.
>>
>> We currently give a #warning for 4.1.0.
>> But not for 4.1.1.
>> (Accordingto the bug >= 4.1.2 is fixed.)
>>
>> And a #warning is not enough.
>>
>> The huge problem is that "empty __weak function in the same file and
>> non-weak arch function" has recently become a common pattern with
>> several new usages added during this merge window alone.
>>
>> And the breakages can be very subtle runtime breakages.
>>
>> 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}
>>
>
> - make __weak also include noinline. I think that's sufficient (at
> least it was when I encountered a gcc bug with these symptoms last year
> or so).
I've tried it and it doesn't work.
> J
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
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