On 09/28/2012 07:20 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:20:05PM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote: >> --- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h >> +++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h >> @@ -13,11 +13,11 @@ >> #define __must_check __attribute__((warn_unused_result)) >> #define __compiler_offsetof(a,b) __builtin_offsetof(a,b) >> >> -#if __GNUC_MINOR__ > 0 >> +#if GCC_VERSION >= 40102 >> # define __compiletime_object_size(obj) __builtin_object_size(obj, 0) >> #endif > You've changed the semantics of this one; if literally translated, this > should have become #if GCC_VERSION >= 40100. If you intended to change > that, could you please document why? And in any case, could you make > that semantic change in a separate commit from the switch to > GCC_VERSION? hmm, it looks like somebody commented out the #error that would normally prevent that test from ever occurring on 4.1.0 or 4.1.1. When I had written this patch, it wasn't commented out and I had assumed that it was obvious from the context. > /* GCC 4.1.[01] miscompiles __weak */ > #ifdef __KERNEL__ > -# if __GNUC_MINOR__ == 1 && __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ <= 1 > +# if GCC_VERSION >= 40100 && GCC_VERSION <= 40101 > //# error Your version of gcc miscompiles the __weak directive > # endif > #endif > @@ -13,11 +13,11 @@ > #define __must_check __attribute__((warn_unused_result)) > #define __compiler_offsetof(a,b) __builtin_offsetof(a,b) > > -#if __GNUC_MINOR__ > 0 > +#if GCC_VERSION >= 40102 > # define __compiletime_object_size(obj) __builtin_object_size(obj, 0) > #endif I would say that commenting this out is bad if __weak is miscompiled. If we don't want to break the build, should we at least be defining __weak to something else? Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
