From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69C6EDDEF7 for ; Sat, 3 May 2008 09:24:54 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Fix kernel builds with newer gcc versions and -Os From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20080502.144220.53637856.davem@davemloft.net> References: <03e9cbca081bff8f6db9862bf3d8d028@kernel.crashing.org> <20080502.144220.53637856.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 09:24:41 +1000 Message-Id: <1209770681.26383.11.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: scottwood@freescale.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 14:42 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Kumar Gala > Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 16:34:13 -0500 > > > We'll hopefully this thread might spark either an explanation for why > > we aren't just linking libgcc in a statement that says we should and > > we can remove the code that implements libgcc functionality. > > > > How would libgcc linking intermix with modules? Would we have to > > EXPORT_SYMBOL() all functions that libgcc implements? I'm guessing > > that's varies w/different gcc versions. > > If you link in libgcc, all of a sudden you have a whole new class of > potential problems, don't do it. > > All it takes is one of these libgcc libcalls the kernel actually > references, needing something else in libc, to make this exercise > futile. Hrm... I though you linked it in, I must be confusing with another arch :-) Oh well, if we fail with something pulling bits off libc etc... we'll see quickly who is the culprit no ? Ben.