Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 03:35:15PM -0700, Venki Pallipadi wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 03:27:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[snip]
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> Not sure whether #error on gcc 4.1.{0.1} is the right thing as I found atleast
> one distro gcc which says itself as 4.1.1, do not exhibit the problem as it
> most likely has fix backported.

Really?  At the time this was a very uncommon thing (hence the initial
it's not a bug, you just didn't use the right flags) comments.  I
suppose it's possible of course that some distro took a 4.1 snapshot and
called it 4.1.1.

> Putting all weak functions in one file is something Suresh and I considered
> before sending this patch. But, looking at various users of __weak, that
> single file did not look very appropriate.

Indeed.  I suspect that even if you go so far as to do a single patch
per "feature", it's gonna be a lotta stuff.

-- 
Tom Rini