Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] compiler-gcc{3,4}.h: Use GCC_VERSION macro

[Borislav Petkov]

On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 01:27:58PM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
> > Did I miss something again? This "error" preprocessor function is
> > commented out here? Why?
> We'll have to ask Andrew.  Maybe so he can test on those versions of gcc?
> 
> commit d3ffe64a1dbcfe18b57f90f7c01c40c93d0a8b92
> Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Fri Sep 28 00:02:42 2012 +0000
> 
>     a
>    
>     Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
> index 934bc34..997fd8a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
> +++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
>  /* GCC 4.1.[01] miscompiles __weak */
>  #ifdef __KERNEL__
>  # if __GNUC_MINOR__ == 1 && __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ <= 1
> -#  error Your version of gcc miscompiles the __weak directive
> +//#  error Your version of gcc miscompiles the __weak directive
>  # endif
>  #endif

Ah, interesting. I think akpm has been redoing -mm couple times recently
so you probably caught a temporary thing.

> I can provide you a version of these patches rebased against Linus if
> you like, which I am using to test since the -mm & -next trees aren't
> working on my machine (hardware, .config and/or LVM/RAID setup). I
> haven't put Walken's patches underneath them however.

Nah, not necessary. I'd simply wait after the merge window closes and
everything settles down and then crank out a patchset against one of
the major trees (say -mm, linus or -next) so we can agree on the final
versions. AFAICT, the general design is fine - it's just the details
that need to be hammered out with precision.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.
--
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/