From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1: ACPI=y, ACPI_BOOT=n problems Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 14:15:41 -0700 Message-ID: <20050406141541.22dbaf32.akpm@osdl.org> References: <42524D83.1080104@reub.net> <20050405121444.GB6885@stusta.de> <6.2.3.0.2.20050406002812.04393a30@tornado.reub.net> <20050405132417.GD6885@stusta.de> <4252F090.4040605@mesatop.com> <20050405183655.0c778129.akpm@osdl.org> <4253EB69.6050702@mesatop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4253EB69.6050702-dIRlkrwy3vBBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Steven Cole Cc: bunk-HeJ8Db2Gnd6zQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org, reuben-lkml-MwA23MxOyI4@public.gmane.org, len.brown-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Steven Cole wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > Steven Cole wrote: > > > >>arch/i386/kernel/setup.c: In function 'setup_arch': > >> arch/i386/kernel/setup.c:1571: warning: implicit declaration of function 'acpi_boot_table_init' > >> arch/i386/kernel/setup.c:1572: warning: implicit declaration of function 'acpi_boot_init' > > > > > > > > diff -puN include/linux/acpi.h~no-acpi-build-fix include/linux/acpi.h > > --- 25/include/linux/acpi.h~no-acpi-build-fix 2005-04-05 00:14:46.000000000 -0700 > > +++ 25-akpm/include/linux/acpi.h 2005-04-05 00:23:39.000000000 -0700 > > @@ -418,16 +418,6 @@ extern int sbf_port ; > [patch snipped] > > Yes, that worked with no CONFIG_ACPI. Thanks. OK, I'll keep spamming the acpi guys with it until they tell me to shut up. > On a slightly offtopic note, I'm now using this gcc: > gcc (GCC) 4.0.0 20050308 (Red Hat 4.0.0-0.32) > > I don't have any quantitative data at hand, this seems SLOOOOW. > I guess that's progress. But it slows down testing somewhat. > There's a reason why I persist in keeping the kernel working with gcc-2.95.4! ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click