From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933261AbYEAWwP (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 18:52:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932849AbYEAWvx (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 18:51:53 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:57147 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933118AbYEAWvw (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 18:51:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 15:51:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20080501.155151.177031041.davem@davemloft.net> To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, bunk@kernel.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, trini@kernel.crashing.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com Subject: Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: <20080501215633.GU29330@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080501152051.4eb4bad3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 15:27:26 -0700 (PDT) > 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. This is my impression as well.