Re: Please include const-sections into linux-next

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 16:03 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> > It's not incredibly trivial: it causes a compile failure on parisc:
> > 
> > mm/percpu.c:1372: error: __setup_str_percpu_alloc_setup causes a section
> > type conflict
> > make[1]: *** [mm/percpu.o] Error 1
> > 
> > I have no idea why, though.
> > 
> 
> Not sure why this would only happen on parisc, but I haven't looked at it 
> closely.  It means something qualified with const is being defined in a 
> section with other definitions that are not const, or vice versa.

I think it's probably a compiler bug.  gcc isn't as adept with section
annotations as people think it is.  This tends to manifest in the
non-x86 toolchains because we tend to be using earlier versions.

James


--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux