From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753884Ab1JPA6S (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:58:18 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:46064 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753512Ab1JPA6Q (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:58:16 -0400 Subject: Re: Please include const-sections into linux-next From: James Bottomley To: David Rientjes Cc: Andi Kleen , Stephen Rothwell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <20111013233818.GB26654@one.firstfloor.org> <1318631204.3018.101.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <1318722567.7271.56.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:58:14 -0500 Message-ID: <1318726694.7271.61.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 17:53 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, James Bottomley wrote: > > > I think it's probably a compiler bug. gcc isn't as adept with section > > annotations as people think it is. This tends to manifest in the > > non-x86 toolchains because we tend to be using earlier versions. > > > > It compiles fine with my cross-compiler using gcc-4.5.1. So it's a native toolchain bug in gcc ... the point still stands: there'll be tons of these throughout non x86 tool chains. You can't break every arch under the sun just for a dubious mark stuff const. James