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

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 03:33:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.

I know I'll come off as an ass, but you can't make new ones with 4.1.2?
It's not like we're talking about gcc 2.95/96 fun here :)

-- 
Tom Rini
--
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/