On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Eric Engestrom wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:12:16AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Beware. > > > > I added many of those exactly because gcc did not ignore them when > > compiling with LTO where the lack of a const qualifier to qualify the > > actual array content, and not only the reference to that content, > > generated build errors due to section mismatches from the __initconst > > annotation. > > I believe the first `const` does that, without the need for a second. > > > So this is a NAK from me unless you may confirm that LTO builds are > > unaffected by your changes. > > I can't confirm it (haven't tried), and don't care enough to do it :] > I guess I'm just dropping the patch then. Like I said, it can't hurt to > leave them in.
I just tested LTO with your patch applied and everything appears to be fine. The extra const are indeed redundant here. So you have an ACK from me. Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <n...@linaro.org> Nicolas
