From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755959AbWKREkL (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:40:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755973AbWKREkL (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:40:11 -0500 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:61606 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755959AbWKREkI (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:40:08 -0500 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Oleg Verych Subject: Re: We're still coping with GCC < 3.0 Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 04:39:44 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Palacky University in Olomouc, experimental physics department. Message-ID: References: <200611172228.58658.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: flower.upol.cz Mail-Followup-To: LKML , Oleg Verych User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1pl1 (Debian) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hallo. On 2006-11-17, someone with nick Blaisorblade wrote: > In arch/i386/kernel/irq.c (current git head) I found this comment: > > /* > * These should really be __section__(".bss.page_aligned") as well, but > * gcc's 3.0 and earlier don't handle that correctly. > */ > static char softirq_stack[NR_CPUS * THREAD_SIZE] > __attribute__((__aligned__(THREAD_SIZE))); > > static char hardirq_stack[NR_CPUS * THREAD_SIZE] > __attribute__((__aligned__(THREAD_SIZE))); > > That should be fixed now that we require GCC 3.0, not? > > Btw, there are other such comments, like in include/asm-i386/semaphore.h: > sema_init (for GCC 2.7!). That one might not be the case to fix because of the > increased stack usage > > I've seen other similar tests around, so I thought that it'd be useful to > centralize all tests for GCC versions to headers like include/compiler.h so > they're promptly removed when deprecating old compilers. > > What about this? Tested patches to Andrew Morton and code maintainers. See also: -- e-mail -- > (CC me on replies as I'm not subscribed) Cc yourself, isn't this smart idea? Also, please, honor "Mail-Followup-To" headers and the like. ____