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

[Chris Knadle <Chris.Knadle@coredump.us>]

On Thu, 1 May 2008, 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.
>
>			Linus

   Unfortunately Debian Stable (i.e. Etch), which is relatively popular for server 
use, is still using 4.1.1  :-(  (The current gcc package is gcc-4.1.1-21)

   I have not looked to see if Debian Stable's gcc-4.1.1-21 has been patched for 
the currently discussed __weak bug.

   -- Chris

Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle@coredump.us