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

[Justin Mattock]

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:24:47 -0700
>  Tom Rini <trini@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  > 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 :)
>
>  Honestly, I nearly died when I built all those cross-compilers.  Sooooooo
>  many combinations of gcc/binutils/glibc refused to work for obscure
>  reasons.  Compilation on x86_64 just didn't work at all and I ended up
>  having to build everything on a slow i386 box, etc, etc.  The stream of
>  email to Dan got increasingly strident ;)
>
>  I think crosstool has become a lot better since then, judging from the ease
>  with which Jens was able to spin up the powerpc compiler, but the trauma
>  was a life-long thing.
>
>  Vegard has been making noises about (finally!) preparing and maintaining a
>  decent set of cross-compilers for us.  It would be a great service (begs).
>
>  --
>  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/
>

I hate to jump in like this, but I noticed something while compiling
madwifi as well with
gcc, I'm wondering if this is related to the above:
/home/name/Desktop/madwifi-trunk-r3574-20080426/Makefile:50
Makefile.inc: no such file or directory
even though the files exists,


Makefile.inc98: scripts/get_arch.mk: no such file or directory
Makefile.inc:102 ath_hal/ah_target.inc: no such file or directory
Makefile.inc:163 *** TARGET i386-elf is invalid, invalid target are: . Stop.
make[1] *** [modules] Error 2

After modifying the  Makefiles you're left with ***TARGET i386-elf problem

regards;

-- 
Justin P. Mattock
--
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/