Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem

Tom Rini
2008-05-01T23:25:00Z

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 03:33:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.

I know I'll come off as an ass, but you can't make new ones with 4.1.2?
It's not like we're talking about gcc 2.95/96 fun here :)

--
Tom Rini