From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764858AbYEAW2S (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 18:28:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758483AbYEAW2A (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 18:28:00 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:48460 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751006AbYEAW2A (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 18:28:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 15:27:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Andrew Morton cc: Adrian Bunk , venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, davem@davemloft.net, 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 In-Reply-To: <20080501152051.4eb4bad3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: 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> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 1 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > I see only the following choices: > > - remove __weak and replace all current usages > > - move all __weak functions into own files, and ensure that also happens > > for future usages > > - #error for gcc 4.1.{0,1} > > Can we detect the {0,1}? __GNUC_EVEN_MORE_MINOR__? 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. Linus