From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:47:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [62.38.115.213] ([62.38.115.213]:16013 "EHLO pfn3.pefnos") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S3465572AbWAWPrM (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:47:12 +0000 Received: from xorhgos2.pefnos (xorhgos2.pefnos [192.168.0.3]) by pfn3.pefnos (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E14C1F742; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:51:10 +0200 (EET) From: "P. Christeas" To: Ralf Baechle Subject: Re: Fixes for uaccess.h with gcc >= 4.0.1 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:50:53 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9 Cc: MIPS Linux List References: <20060123150507.GA18665@linux-mips.org> <200601231718.40581.p_christ@hol.gr> <20060123153715.GC18665@linux-mips.org> In-Reply-To: <20060123153715.GC18665@linux-mips.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200601231750.55246.p_christ@hol.gr> Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 10067 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: p_christ@hol.gr Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Monday 23 January 2006 5:37 pm, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:18:38PM +0200, P. Christeas wrote: > > On Monday 23 January 2006 5:05 pm, Ralf Baechle wrote: > > > I'd appreciate if somebody with gcc 4.0.1 could test this kernel patch > > > below. > > > > > > Ralf > > > > Is that for 2.4? > > 2.4 is a no go for all architectures with gcc >= 4.0.0 and in case of MIPS > even gcc 3.4 is somewhat dubious. > > > 2.6 doesn't seem to have that problem.. > > It's probably a matter of configuration then. Basically with our current > uaccess.h and gcc >= 4.0.1 the attempt to pass a pointer to a const > variable as the pointer argument to get_user or __get_user will blow up. > It's always been a bug - but gcc before 4.0.1 were accepting this > silently. > > Ralf I 've been compiling with gcc 4.0.2 (my tree is Linus') and haven't seen any message like that. It all compiles fine. Is there a point in testing your patch as well?