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

[Venki Pallipadi]

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 03:27:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds 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.
> 

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.

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.

Thanks,
Venki
--
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/