On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 01:38:02PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>...
> Hmmm...
>
> http://www.ohse.de/uwe/articles/gcc-attributes.html
>
> says:
>
> model (MODEL-NAME)
> Found in versions: 2.8-3.4
>...
This site says at the top it used gcc versions up to 3.4, so it
obviously can't find
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
> Code-size reduction? You must be talking *source* code size
> reduction. Surely the small-data access-method decreases object code
> size.
Yes source code reduction. I just added the attribute back but in such a
way that any arch can add
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Strange. Works fine here.
>
> $ arch/ia64/scripts/toolchain-flags gcc objdump readelf
> -DHAVE_WORKING_TEXT_ALIGN -DHAVE_MODEL_SMALL_ATTRIBUTE
> -DHAVE_SERIALIZE_DIRECTIVE
> $ gcc --version | head -n 1
> gcc (GCC) 4.2.1 (SUSE Linux)
> $ grep
On 11/27/07, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
>
> > Uniformity for the sake of uniformity? The small data addressing is
> > really elegant and I don't think it should be dropped just for the
> > sake of uniformity.
>
> Uniformity for
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
>> Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X.
>>
>> Which gcc 4.X are you talking about?
>
> All. Last gcc that supported this was 3.4.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
> Uniformity for the sake of uniformity? The small data addressing is
> really elegant and I don't think it should be dropped just for the
> sake of uniformity.
Uniformity for the sake of code size reduction and easier maintenance.
Yes I think
On 11/27/07, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
>
> > On 11/26/07, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X. The tests
> > > will always be negative today.
> >
> > What was
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X.
>
> Which gcc 4.X are you talking about?
All. Last gcc that supported this was 3.4.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
> On 11/26/07, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X. The tests
> > will always be negative today.
>
> What was the rationale for removing this attribute?
The code is then similar
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X.
Which gcc 4.X are you talking about?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X.
Which gcc 4.X are you talking about?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
On 11/26/07, Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X. The tests
will always be negative today.
What was the rationale for removing this attribute?
The code is then similar across
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X.
Which gcc 4.X are you talking about?
All. Last gcc that supported this was 3.4.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On 11/27/07, Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
On 11/26/07, Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X. The tests
will always be negative today.
What was the rationale for
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
Uniformity for the sake of uniformity? The small data addressing is
really elegant and I don't think it should be dropped just for the
sake of uniformity.
Uniformity for the sake of code size reduction and easier maintenance.
Yes I think it
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X.
Which gcc 4.X are you talking about?
All. Last gcc that supported this was 3.4.
Strange. Works
On 11/27/07, Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
Uniformity for the sake of uniformity? The small data addressing is
really elegant and I don't think it should be dropped just for the
sake of uniformity.
Uniformity for the sake of
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Strange. Works fine here.
$ arch/ia64/scripts/toolchain-flags gcc objdump readelf
-DHAVE_WORKING_TEXT_ALIGN -DHAVE_MODEL_SMALL_ATTRIBUTE
-DHAVE_SERIALIZE_DIRECTIVE
$ gcc --version | head -n 1
gcc (GCC) 4.2.1 (SUSE Linux)
$ grep
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
Code-size reduction? You must be talking *source* code size
reduction. Surely the small-data access-method decreases object code
size.
Yes source code reduction. I just added the attribute back but in such a
way that any arch can add
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 01:38:02PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
...
Hmmm...
http://www.ohse.de/uwe/articles/gcc-attributes.html
says:
model (MODEL-NAME)
Found in versions: 2.8-3.4
...
This site says at the top it used gcc versions up to 3.4, so it
obviously can't find anything
On 11/26/07, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X. The tests
> will always be negative today.
What was the rationale for removing this attribute?
--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X. The tests
will always be negative today.
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/ia64/scripts/check-model.c |1 -
arch/ia64/scripts/toolchain-flags |6 --
The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X. The tests
will always be negative today.
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/ia64/scripts/check-model.c |1 -
arch/ia64/scripts/toolchain-flags |6 --
On 11/26/07, Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The model(small) attribute is not supported by gcc 4.X. The tests
will always be negative today.
What was the rationale for removing this attribute?
--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the
24 matches
Mail list logo
