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

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 02:09:53PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> A workaround here is the wrong solution since this isn't the only place 
>> that suffers from this issue.
>>
>> We currently give a #warning for 4.1.0.
>> But not for 4.1.1.
>> (Accordingto the bug >= 4.1.2 is fixed.)
>>
>> And a #warning is not enough.
>>
>> The huge problem is that "empty __weak function in the same file and  
>> non-weak arch function" has recently become a common pattern with  
>> several new usages added during this merge window alone.
>>
>> And the breakages can be very subtle runtime breakages.
>>
>> 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}
>>   
>
> - make __weak also include noinline.  I think that's sufficient (at  
> least it was when I encountered a gcc bug with these symptoms last year  
> or so).

I've tried it and it doesn't work.

>    J

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
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/