From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765041AbYEBAAx (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 20:00:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754100AbYEBAAp (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 20:00:45 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:38765 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753676AbYEBAAp (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 20:00:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:59:45 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Tom Rini Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, bunk@kernel.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, davem@davemloft.net, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, vegard.nossum@gmail.com Subject: Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem Message-Id: <20080501165945.077d34f9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080501232447.GF4354@smtp.west.cox.net> 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> <20080501153349.f4537ec7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080501232447.GF4354@smtp.west.cox.net> 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: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:24:47 -0700 Tom Rini wrote: > 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 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 :) Honestly, I nearly died when I built all those cross-compilers. Sooooooo many combinations of gcc/binutils/glibc refused to work for obscure reasons. Compilation on x86_64 just didn't work at all and I ended up having to build everything on a slow i386 box, etc, etc. The stream of email to Dan got increasingly strident ;) I think crosstool has become a lot better since then, judging from the ease with which Jens was able to spin up the powerpc compiler, but the trauma was a life-long thing. Vegard has been making noises about (finally!) preparing and maintaining a decent set of cross-compilers for us. It would be a great service (begs).