From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:50:57 +1100
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:39:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again,
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:21:28 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > So, this could be a compiler bug?
> >
> > We pass -fno-common to gcc which seems to cause the (non-extern) const
> > variable to end up in the bss.
>
> -fno-common
> In C, allocate even uninitialized global variables in the data
> section of the object file, rather than generating them as common
> blocks. This has the effect that if the same variable is declared
> (without "extern") in two different compilations, you will get an
> error when you link them. The only reason this might be useful is
> if you wish to verify that the program will work on other systems
> which always work this way.
>
> I don't know why we use this, but it seems to basically make using
> "extern" on variables in header files compulsory. But it seems to be
> moving the variable from *COM* to .bss rather than to .{ro}data as I would
> expect from the description above.
>
> Oh, well, easy to work around.
Thanks for testing, it confirms my suspicions :-)
I'll check in the fix.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
