From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934792AbYEBNpz (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 09:45:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764236AbYEBNpq (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 09:45:46 -0400 Received: from BISCAYNE-ONE-STATION.MIT.EDU ([18.7.7.80]:56473 "EHLO biscayne-one-station.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760710AbYEBNpn (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 09:45:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:43:49 -0400 From: Theodore Tso To: Vegard Nossum Cc: Andrew Morton , Tom Rini , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, bunk@kernel.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, 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: <20080502134349.GI17365@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Vegard Nossum , Andrew Morton , Tom Rini , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, bunk@kernel.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, davem@davemloft.net, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com 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> <20080501153349.f4537ec7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080501232447.GF4354@smtp.west.cox.net> <20080501165945.077d34f9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <19f34abd0805020018i11fb722fg5a4cc180ab5f2856@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19f34abd0805020018i11fb722fg5a4cc180ab5f2856@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.00 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 09:18:10AM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote: > though these are largely untested with Linux Kernel. Most of them are > gcc 3.4.5 (this should in theory compile the kernel correctly), though > I found an e-mail from Ingo saying that you need the -tls versions for > stackprotector to work correctly. This might be a good time to ask if > I should be making gcc 4.1.2s instead. I need to recompile in either > case. Out of curiosity, are you using the stock gcc/binutils from the FSF, or one of the distro toolchains? When we were investigating which compiler/toolchain to use for the LSB Sample Implementation, one of the comments that I got from folks like Eric Troan from rPath and others was that out-of-the-box compiler/toolchain had so many bugs, particularly on non-x86 architectures, that they found they were much better off using a distro-patched/bug-fixed compiler/toolchain and treating that as the upstream. There has been some requests to include cross-compilation functionality into the LSB Build Environment, so I'd be interested in seeing how your work has been going, and maybe there's some opportunity to work together. Is there a mailing list you have for this project? - Ted