On Wednesday, December 26, 2012 12:41:05 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Do you have a reference for this? I think this might have been true > >> in the past, but I don't think it's true for any version of gcc we > >> support for building Linux. > > > > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0804.3/3600.html > > the problem is already addressed by: > > | commit f9d14250071eda9972e4c9cea745a11185952114 > | Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > | Date: Fri Jan 2 09:29:43 2009 -0800 > | > | Disallow gcc versions 4.1.{0,1} > | > | These compiler versions are known to miscompile __weak functions and > | thus generate kernels that don't necessarily work correctly. If a weak > | function is int he same compilation unit as a caller, gcc may end up > | inlining it, and thus binding the weak function too early. > | > | See > | > | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27781 > | > | for details. > > so it is ok to put the __weak in the same file now. Cool, thanks for checking and for the ACK! Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
