From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Franz Sirl Message-Id: <200112052146.16467@enzo.bigblue.local> To: Corey Minyard Subject: Re: Changes to PPC Linux required for GCC 3.1 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 21:51:02 +0100 Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011205134825.024d8ed8@mail.lauterbach.com> <3C0E48D2.6000409@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <3C0E48D2.6000409@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wednesday 05 December 2001 17:18, Corey Minyard wrote: > Franz Sirl wrote: > > Ah, I see, I only saw this problem in aty128fb. I'll add the fix to > > the linuxconsole CVS for 2.5.x. > > What about 2.4? I'm sure people will want to compile 2.4 with gcc 3.x. That has to go thru the usual channels. > >> * In include/linux/sunrpc/clnt.h, I removed a bogus function declaration > >> which was messing up inlining. > > > > I guess this is 3.1 specific? I don't remember problems with 3.0.x. > > Probably. I've seen some other problems with GCC being fairly picky > about declarations, and I think it's fairly new. But the declaration > both wrong and unnecessary. Ah yes, I browsed this discussion on the lists. > > What about the FAT filesystem? Is gcc-3.1 now able to correctly > > optimize the 64bit signed divide by const into a ASHIFT+fixup? > > Nope. I was going to ask about that one. Do you have a GCC PR on this? Nope, probably I should add one, cause I don't have time to continue with a divdi3_32 pattern anytime soon :-(. Franz. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/