From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765641AbYEAWfh (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 18:35:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753128AbYEAWfS (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 18:35:18 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:43003 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932673AbYEAWfR (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 18:35:17 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,423,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="240773512" Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 15:35:15 -0700 From: Venki Pallipadi To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrew Morton , Adrian Bunk , 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 Subject: Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem Message-ID: <20080501223515.GA11366@linux-os.sc.intel.com> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 03:27:26PM -0700, 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. > Not sure whether #error on gcc 4.1.{0.1} is the right thing as I found atleast one distro gcc which says itself as 4.1.1, do not exhibit the problem as it most likely has fix backported. Putting all weak functions in one file is something Suresh and I considered before sending this patch. But, looking at various users of __weak, that single file did not look very appropriate. Thanks, Venki