From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933044AbYEAWvs (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 18:51:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756037AbYEAWvi (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 18:51:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:33231 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755310AbYEAWvh (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 18:51:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:49:56 -0400 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Andrew Morton Cc: Venki Pallipadi , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, bunk@kernel.org, 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: <20080501224956.GM2255@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek 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> <20080501223515.GA11366@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20080501154238.eccdb6ff.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080501154238.eccdb6ff.akpm@linux-foundation.org> 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 03:42:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Is there some vaguely maintainable workaround we can do? If the problem > only affects completely-empty weak functions then we could put something in > them to make them non-empty? for (;;); isn't enough, the function would be still considered const and by 4.1.0 and some 4.1.1 incorrectly optimized out, without regard to weak attribute. But e.g. asm (""); should be enough. Jakub