On Wed, 21 May 2008 15:44:41 -0400
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 11:41 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Hrm... do you think we should work around ? ie. move the stubs to a
> separate .c file ?
>
istr that sticking an asm(""); in the weak function was a reliable
workaround. If we are going to to that it should be via
/* comment goes here */
#define gcc_screws_up_weak_stuff() asm("")
but that approach didn't seem very popular. It's a _bit_ fragile I
guess, but it's pretty easy to grep for missed workarounds.
--
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
