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
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
> 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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo