Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

[Zachary Amsden]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Really truly?   I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the section
> qualifier altogether.  How come they don't all break too?
>   

According to the report I have.  Perhaps a bogus section qualifier does 
more damage than an omitted one.  I'll get gcc  / linker version, but 
this could be a combination of user error, a strange toolchain, and 
perhaps a real bug somewhere.

> (ARM (at least) in fact does require the section tagging on the declaration as
> well as the definition, but we've thus far only fixed that in a couple of places
> which were causing breakage).
>   

Yes, I was surprised by this as well, and I'm still skeptical about this 
being the real cause.  Still, this reportedly fixed the problem, and is 
certainly not a bad thing.

Zach
-
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/