From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933125AbYEBKho (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 06:37:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759926AbYEBKhg (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 06:37:36 -0400 Received: from pascoe.ucs.ed.ac.uk ([129.215.128.240]:40227 "EHLO pascoe.ucs.ed.ac.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758053AbYEBKhf (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 06:37:35 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 2483 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Fri, 02 May 2008 06:37:35 EDT From: Alistair John Strachan To: Chris Knadle Subject: Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:55:09 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) Cc: Andrew Morton , Adrian Bunk , venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, 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, Linus Torvalds References: <20080501235558.GA20637@orac.ofobscurity.com> In-Reply-To: <20080501235558.GA20637@orac.ofobscurity.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805021055.10602.alistair@devzero.co.uk> X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at pascoe.ucs.ed.ac.uk with MIMEDefang 2.52, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Chris, (I fixed the corrupted CC and Reply-to: address from your email.) On Friday 02 May 2008 00:55:58 Chris Knadle wrote: > 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. I checked and it has been patched in 4.1.1-21. This would make checking for 4.1.1 via __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ potentially invalid, as patched distro compilers may (and in this case do) have this fixed. -- Cheers, Alistair. 137/1 Warrender Park Road, Edinburgh, UK.