On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 08:27:48AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 08:18:39AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 06:40:05AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>>>> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>>>>> Expect a lot more of this to pop up in the future.
>>>>>> Should we #error for gcc 4.3.1?
>>>>> it/s better to find if the gcc guys made a testcase for this bug (they normally do) and
>>>>> test based on that.
>>>> The gcc Bugzilla contains a testcase.
>>>>
>>>> But how do you plan to integrate it into a kernel build?
>>> we already have several of these.
>>> Just look at scripts/gcc-x86_64-has-stack-protector.sh for an example of such a beast.
>>
>> Checking whether gcc supports some flags is easy.
>
> have you actually looked at this script?
> You didn't, since the script doesn't check if gcc supports some flag.
> It checks very specifically for a code generation pattern...
>
> Please go look at the script first before responding.
I did look, but I missed the last pipe...
Do we know for sure this bug can only trigger on 32bit x86?
Or is there anything else I miss in gcc-x86_64-has-stack-protector.sh
that allows to use this approach to check for wrong code generation
caused by platform independent gcc bugs?
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
