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

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
> 

Drat.  There go my alpha, i386, m68k, s390, sparc and powerpc
cross-compilers.  Vagard, save me!

Meanwhile I guess I can locally unpatch that patch.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/