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 005CADDE02 for ; Sat, 3 May 2008 21:01:10 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Fix bootwrapper builds with newer gcc versions From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20080503.005510.88048425.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1209770875.26383.14.camel@pasglop> <20080502.163855.96423898.davem@davemloft.net> <1209801017.26383.21.camel@pasglop> <20080503.005510.88048425.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 21:01:02 +1000 Message-Id: <1209812462.26383.26.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: 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 Sat, 2008-05-03 at 00:55 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt > Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 17:50:17 +1000 > > > Best would be if we could get those runtime bits linked in the module > > itself, but I don't know enough about our toolchain to know if that's > > easy (I suppose everything is always possible :-) > > The only downside is that you'd have N copies of these > routines, one for every module that emmited the libcalls. Yup, so it's mostly a matter of balance, choosing which of these should be kept in the kernel and which of these linked directly I suppose, possibly based on usage frequency and size. A pain in the neck tho... Ben.