Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-13 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > (The ARM thing is a pain, because the compiler cannot check that the > definition and declaration match. However something like sparse could do > so). Well, I guess sparse could do it, but the fact is, this is just a gcc bug. It would be much

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-13 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Andrew Morton wrote: > Correctly matching the section annotation on declarations and definitions > is needed by at least ARM. We should ensure that we do this on all future > patches and we should also apply this patch if only for this reason. > > (The ARM thing is a pain, because the compiler

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-13 Thread Andrew Morton
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:45:06 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 13 March 2007 07:46, Zachary Amsden wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the > > > section qualifier altogether. How come they don't all

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-13 Thread Andi Kleen
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 07:46, Zachary Amsden wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the > > section qualifier altogether. How come they don't all break too? > > User build was smoking this: > > make O=build -j16 > > This and

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-13 Thread Andi Kleen
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 07:46, Zachary Amsden wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the section qualifier altogether. How come they don't all break too? User build was smoking this: make O=build -j16 This and non-repeatable

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-13 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:45:06 +0100 Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 13 March 2007 07:46, Zachary Amsden wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the section qualifier altogether. How come they don't all break too?

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-13 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Andrew Morton wrote: Correctly matching the section annotation on declarations and definitions is needed by at least ARM. We should ensure that we do this on all future patches and we should also apply this patch if only for this reason. (The ARM thing is a pain, because the compiler cannot

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-13 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: (The ARM thing is a pain, because the compiler cannot check that the definition and declaration match. However something like sparse could do so). Well, I guess sparse could do it, but the fact is, this is just a gcc bug. It would be much better

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-12 Thread Zachary Amsden
Andrew Morton wrote: Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the section qualifier altogether. How come they don't all break too? User build was smoking this: make O=build -j16 This and non-repeatable results make me suspect some kind of build dependency

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-12 Thread Zachary Amsden
Andrew Morton wrote: Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the section qualifier altogether. How come they don't all break too? According to the report I have. Perhaps a bogus section qualifier does more damage than an omitted one. I'll get gcc / linker

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-12 Thread Andrew Morton
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:58:08 -0800 Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Some gcc put this function in .init.text because the header didn't > match. For 2.6.21-rc. > > Zach > > > [vmi-devinit-header-fix.patch text/plain (606B)] > > > Index: linux-2.6.21/include/asm-i386/vmi_time.h

[PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-12 Thread Zachary Amsden
Some gcc put this function in .init.text because the header didn't match. For 2.6.21-rc. Zach Index: linux-2.6.21/include/asm-i386/vmi_time.h === --- linux-2.6.21.orig/include/asm-i386/vmi_time.h 2007-03-06

[PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-12 Thread Zachary Amsden
Some gcc put this function in .init.text because the header didn't match. For 2.6.21-rc. Zach Index: linux-2.6.21/include/asm-i386/vmi_time.h === --- linux-2.6.21.orig/include/asm-i386/vmi_time.h 2007-03-06

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-12 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:58:08 -0800 Zachary Amsden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some gcc put this function in .init.text because the header didn't match. For 2.6.21-rc. Zach [vmi-devinit-header-fix.patch text/plain (606B)] Index: linux-2.6.21/include/asm-i386/vmi_time.h

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-12 Thread Zachary Amsden
Andrew Morton wrote: Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the section qualifier altogether. How come they don't all break too? According to the report I have. Perhaps a bogus section qualifier does more damage than an omitted one. I'll get gcc / linker

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-12 Thread Zachary Amsden
Andrew Morton wrote: Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the section qualifier altogether. How come they don't all break too? User build was smoking this: make O=build -j16 This and non-repeatable results make me suspect some kind of build dependency