On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:56:25 -0400 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 16:44 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > > so what
> > > > about the patch below ?
> > >
> > > I like it, but the compiler won't ;)
> > >
> > > > If you're ok, I'll re-send with appropriate sob
> > > > & adapted powerpc part.
> > >
> > > Sure.
> > >
> > > > +void __init __attribute__((weak) thread_info_cache_init(void)
> > >
>
> Back to this old subject...
>
> I'm having reports that this is not working...
>
> gcc is seeing the empty weak function and is optimizing it out
> before it gets a chance to link to the arch provided one.
>
> This would affect that and the other one next to it..
>
> That seems pretty bad... it causes nasty crashes as we end up having no
> idea what the compiler decided to generate... I suppose we could keep
> the weak stubs out of the file where they are called but that sucks.
>
> ie. This is some form of gcc 4.1.1
>
> Is that a known problem ? A gcc issue ? Not sure what is expected from
> those weak functions.
yup, gcc bug. Discussed recently on lkml, "Subject: Re: huge gcc
4.1.{0,1} __weak problem". I don't think anything ended up happening
about it though.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
