Doesn't it seem like fixing the broken scripts might be better? And if not, why not? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Bah! here is the non bouncing version (I hope). > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt > Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:38:20 -0700 > From: David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@xxxxxxxxxx> > CC: trisha yad <trisha1march@xxxxxxxxx>, Jie Zhang <jie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > gcc-help@xxxxxxx, arm-gnu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > On 03/26/2010 10:27 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> trisha yad<trisha1march@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -fno-optimize-sibling-calls -O2 test.c >>> I can see Function name Convert to >>> 0000842c t T.12 >> >> You still haven't explained what is wrong with that symbol. Why does >> it matter? > > I thought I already said this, but here it is again: > > Some broken Linux kernel build scripts flag the presence of these > symbols a something very bad. If you try building a kernel containing > these scripts, you might be lead to think that the end of the world is near. > > Obviously the way to fix the problem is to change GCC so it doesn't > trigger the emission of these messages in the defective kernels. :-) > > > David Daney >
