From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932879AbYEAXXo (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 19:23:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757775AbYEAXXg (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 19:23:36 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.241.42]:63909 "EHLO fed1rmmtao104.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752551AbYEAXXg (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 19:23:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:23:34 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Venki Pallipadi Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Adrian Bunk , davem@davemloft.net, 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 Message-ID: <20080501232334.GE4354@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20080430013108.GA18207@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20080429.212833.192304794.davem@davemloft.net> <924EFEDD5F540B4284297C4DC59F3DEEF7D18E@orsmsx423.amr.corp.intel.com> <20080501215633.GU29330@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080501152051.4eb4bad3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080501223515.GA11366@linux-os.sc.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080501223515.GA11366@linux-os.sc.intel.com> Organization: Embedded Alley Solutions, Inc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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