On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:54:10PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote:
> > - extern void __buggy_fxsr_alignment(void);
> > - __buggy_fxsr_alignment();
> > + extern void __BUG__task_struct__data_is_not_properly_alligned__Probably_your_compiler_is_buggy(void);
> > + __BUG__task_struct__data_is_not_properly_alligned__Probably_your_compiler_is_buggy();
>
> 1. People would probably still report that to l-k instead of reading it.
> 2. It's still not guaranteed to compile, even with correct compilers.
>
> Maybe you can do a post-processing step - a sanity check which is run
> _after_ build. But the runtime check is sufficient. People won't randomly
> start compiling kernels for production boxen with silly compilers, then
> booting them unattended. And if they do, they deserve the downtime.
grep '__BUG__' System.map | cut -d\ -f3
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 21:00:10 EST