From: Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, bunk@kernel.org,
davem@davemloft.net, 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
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:21:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080501232116.GD4354@smtp.west.cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080501154238.eccdb6ff.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 03:42:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
[snip]
> 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?
My memory is a tiny bit hazy (it was a while ago), but no, it's not just
empty functions (again, I _think_ I hit it with a generic vs arch weak
function).
--
Tom Rini
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-01 23:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-30 1:31 [PATCH] /dev/mem gcc weak function workaround Venki Pallipadi
2008-04-30 4:28 ` David Miller
2008-04-30 12:49 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2008-04-30 20:15 ` Tom Rini
2008-05-01 21:56 ` huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem Adrian Bunk
2008-05-01 22:20 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-01 22:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-01 22:33 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-01 23:24 ` Tom Rini
2008-05-01 23:59 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-02 0:21 ` Justin Mattock
2008-05-02 7:18 ` Vegard Nossum
2008-05-02 13:43 ` Theodore Tso
2008-05-02 8:10 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-05-02 9:09 ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-01 22:35 ` Venki Pallipadi
2008-05-01 22:42 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-01 22:49 ` Jakub Jelinek
2008-05-01 23:21 ` Tom Rini [this message]
2008-05-01 23:30 ` Venki Pallipadi
2008-05-02 0:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-02 0:39 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-05-02 21:11 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-02 22:02 ` David Miller
2008-05-01 23:23 ` Tom Rini
2008-05-01 22:51 ` David Miller
2008-06-26 10:37 ` [2.6.26 patch] #error for gcc 4.1.{0,1} Adrian Bunk
2008-05-02 21:09 ` huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-02 21:19 ` Adrian Bunk
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-05-01 23:55 Chris Knadle
2008-05-02 9:19 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2008-05-02 9:55 ` Alistair John Strachan
2008-05-02 10:43 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-05-02 11:48 ` Alistair John Strachan
2008-05-02 13:57 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-05-02 14:11 ` Jakub Jelinek
2008-05-02 15:26 ` Alistair John Strachan
2008-05-02 14:57 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-02 12:40 ` Sven-Haegar Koch
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080501232116.GD4354@smtp.west.cox.net \
--to=trini@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bunk@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox