From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:30:22 -0600 From: Cort Dougan To: Tom Rini Cc: linuxppc-commit@source.mvista.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: egcs vs gcc-2.95.x Message-ID: <20010906123022.D5873@ftsoj.fsmlabs.com> References: <20010906112613.M21172@cpe-24-221-152-185.az.sprintbbd.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20010906112613.M21172@cpe-24-221-152-185.az.sprintbbd.net>; from trini@kernel.crashing.org on Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 11:26:13AM -0700 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Is this a comment by me? If so, that was a problem with __builtin_return_address() not working in leaf functions which still exists today, I believe. The "fix" there is a hack to leave those outline in lieu of the inline versions so that several functions were made non-leaf. In some other projects I've used changed those around so that __builtin_return_address() is redefined to call another stub function so that it's always called in a non-leaf function. It's cleaner and more reliable, but not any prettier. } Hello all. I happened to be skimming asm/byteorder.h for some reason, and } noticed that we have ___arch__swab16/___arch__swab32 written, but #if 0'ed } because of an egcs bug. A bit of grep'ing showed that set_bit (asm/bitops.h) } used to be #if 0'ed because of another egcs bug but isn't now. So the } question is, is anyone still using egcs to compile a kernel? If, so } what version (1.0.x or 1.1.x) and does anyone remember what version of } egcs produced the bug? } } If nothing else, perhaps in 2.5 this should go away.. } } -- } Tom Rini (TR1265) } http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ } } _______________________________________________ } linuxppc-commit mailing list } linuxppc-commit@source.mvista.com } http://source.mvista.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-commit ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/