From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 08:00:16 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Murray Jensen Cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] misc compiler warn/err fixes, typo fixes and aesthetic changes Message-ID: <20020603150016.GH8193@opus.bloom.county> References: <20020528183509.GI1295@opus.bloom.county> <23554.1022636535@msa.cmst.csiro.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <23554.1022636535@msa.cmst.csiro.au> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 11:42:15AM +1000, Murray Jensen wrote: > > On Tue, 28 May 2002 11:35:09 -0700, Tom Rini writes: > >> misc compiler warn/err fixes, typo fixes and aesthetic changes > > > >1) Why did you need to add in all of the 'volatile' keyword? What > >compiler are you using which is unhappy with this? Part of why I ask is > >I _think_ this was a problem with gcc-2.96/2.97 but not any actual > >'release'. > > The volatiles for "cpmp" and "immr" fall into the "aesthetic changes" category. > These pointers are volatile and should be declared as such, so there is never > any confusion. Okay. > The volatiles in "include/asm-ppc/uaccess.h" worked around a compiler bug. I > looked at it, and the pattern was that it had a lot of problems with inline > functions calling inline functions - it messed up its register allocation and > aborted. Well, talk to the gcc people. :) Or maybe some of these inlines should be #defines or actual functions.. I think I heard Dan Malek question why we have so many inlines recently anyhow.. > My compiler version is "gcc version 3.1 20011203 (experimental)". The problem > may have been fixed by now (I pulled this gcc from CVS in December). Other than > these two inlines, this compiler compiles the kernel fine (and it runs on our > MPC8260 based Hymod board). Well, gcc-3.1.1 should be out soonish, so please try a newer compiler. > >2) Changes outside of arch/ppc and include/asm-ppc need to go onto > >Marcelo (who will either take them or tell you to send them to the > >appropriate maintainer). > > I didn't mean to include those two - anyone who tried to compile those modules > would get the same errors - they are simply typos (missing include, missing > commas). I expect they will be fixed in due course and will come through in the > normal merges. Do you think I should submit them anyway? Cheers! You certainly should send them. They don't get fixed until someone does. :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/