Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem

Andrew Morton
2008-05-01T22:35:08Z

On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 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.