From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263858AbTDYKeG (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2003 06:34:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263859AbTDYKeF (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2003 06:34:05 -0400 Received: from web20403.mail.yahoo.com ([66.163.169.91]:15390 "HELO web20415.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S263858AbTDYKeF (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2003 06:34:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20030425104615.7429.qmail@web20415.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 03:46:15 -0700 (PDT) From: devnetfs Subject: Re: compiling modules with gcc 3.2 To: arjanv@redhat.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1051261584.1391.4.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --- Arjan van de Ven wrote: Thanks for the quick reply :) > > Either way why is this so? AFAIK gcc 3.2 has abi incompatiblities > > w.r.t. C++ and not C (which the kernel+modules are written in). > > there are some cornercase C ABI changes but nobody except DAC960 will > ever hit those. what are these? i am just curious about the change as i dont see them (probably did not search hard) documented/listed on gcc site. C++ ABI changes have some mention on some sites, but NOT on C ABI. > The more serious change is that the kernel contains > workarounds for older compilers (the test used is major < 3) that > changes the size of structures etc etc, and that breaks the module > stuff. so does this mean that: these workarounds now fixed in gcc 3.X? and its just that the workaround employed in kernel source (for gcc 2.X) is different than the way gcc 3.X fixes them and hence objects generated from gcc 3.X and 2.X (w.r.t kernel sources+modules) dont mix well? thanks A. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com