On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 01:27:58PM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
> > Did I miss something again? This "error" preprocessor function is
> > commented out here? Why?
> We'll have to ask Andrew. Maybe so he can test on those versions of gcc?
>
> commit d3ffe64a1dbcfe18b57f90f7c01c40c93d0a8b92
> Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri Sep 28 00:02:42 2012 +0000
>
> a
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
> index 934bc34..997fd8a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
> +++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
> /* GCC 4.1.[01] miscompiles __weak */
> #ifdef __KERNEL__
> # if __GNUC_MINOR__ == 1 && __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ <= 1
> -# error Your version of gcc miscompiles the __weak directive
> +//# error Your version of gcc miscompiles the __weak directive
> # endif
> #endif
Ah, interesting. I think akpm has been redoing -mm couple times recently
so you probably caught a temporary thing.
> I can provide you a version of these patches rebased against Linus if
> you like, which I am using to test since the -mm & -next trees aren't
> working on my machine (hardware, .config and/or LVM/RAID setup). I
> haven't put Walken's patches underneath them however.
Nah, not necessary. I'd simply wait after the merge window closes and
everything settles down and then crank out a patchset against one of
the major trees (say -mm, linus or -next) so we can agree on the final
versions. AFAICT, the general design is fine - it's just the details
that need to be hammered out with precision.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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
