From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932538AbYEAXV2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 19:21:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759158AbYEAXVS (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 19:21:18 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao105.cox.net ([68.230.241.41]:65266 "EHLO fed1rmmtao105.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759100AbYEAXVS (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 19:21:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:21:16 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Andrew Morton Cc: Venki Pallipadi , 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 Message-ID: <20080501232116.GD4354@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> <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> Organization: Embedded Alley Solutions, Inc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) 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: [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