From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com (e36.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e36.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0682DDED8 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 12:45:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m382jm5l010288 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:45:48 -0400 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m382jmEH194306 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 20:45:48 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m382jmIP001716 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 20:45:48 -0600 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 21:44:15 -0500 From: Josh Boyer To: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add idle wait support for 44x platforms Message-ID: <20080407214415.371a8edc@zod.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200804080441.28739.arnd@arndb.de> References: <7226bef216680748a503.1207262582@thinkpadL> <200804080417.37272.arnd@arndb.de> <20080407213127.7bb9a769@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <200804080441.28739.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: kvm-ppc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 04:41:28 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Josh Boyer wrote: > > >=20 > > > Actually, a static assignment to 0 has not caused the symbol to end up > > > in .data for many gcc versions, it always goes into .bss now unless y= ou > > > assign it a value other than 0 or use explicit section attributes. > >=20 > > IIRC, gcc 3.2 is still supported and it didn't do that. =C2=A0Old toolc= hains > > still exist. >=20 > Ok, I thought it was before 3.2. The oldest version I had around was > gcc-3.3 and that had the new behaviour. http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc-3.3/changes.html gcc 3.3.1 it seems. I thought I included that in the original reply, but it's late and I suck :). josh