From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S932465AbYEAWfI@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932465AbYEAWfI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 1 May 2008 18:35:08 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753128AbYEAWe5
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 1 May 2008 18:34:57 -0400
Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:53803 "EHLO
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751633AbYEAWe4 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 1 May 2008 18:34:56 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 15:33:49 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: bunk@kernel.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, davem@davemloft.net,
       trini@kernel.crashing.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de,
       hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com,
       Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem
Message-Id: <20080501153349.f4537ec7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805011525460.5994@woody.linux-foundation.org>
References: <20080430013108.GA18207@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
	<20080429.212833.192304794.davem@davemloft.net>
	<924EFEDD5F540B4284297C4DC59F3DEEF7D18E@orsmsx423.amr.corp.intel.com>
	<20080501215633.GU29330@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
	<20080501152051.4eb4bad3.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<alpine.LFD.1.10.0805011525460.5994@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 1 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > 
> > > I see only the following choices:
> > > - remove __weak and replace all current usages
> > > - move all __weak functions into own files, and ensure that also happens
> > >   for future usages
> > > - #error for gcc 4.1.{0,1}
> > 
> > Can we detect the {0,1}?  __GNUC_EVEN_MORE_MINOR__?
> 
> It's __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__, I believe.
> 
> So yes, we can distinguish 4.1.2 (good, and very common) from 4.1.{0,1} 
> (bad, and rather uncommon).
> 
> And yes, considering that 4.1.1 (and even more so 4.1.0) should be rare to 
> begin with, I think it's better to just not support it.
> 

Drat.  There go my alpha, i386, m68k, s390, sparc and powerpc
cross-compilers.  Vagard, save me!

Meanwhile I guess I can locally unpatch that patch.