On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:14:58PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:48:43 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:47:34PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:17:13 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote: > > > > __initdata should be placed between the variable name and equal > > > > sign for the variable to be placed in the intended section. > > > > > > Really? With gcc 4.7.2 of openSUSE 12.3/x86-64, I see no difference > > > with and without this change. pm_dmi_table is in section .init.data in > > > both cases. So when/where/how does it actually matter? > > > > > > I see that there are hundreds of other occurrences of this in the > > > kernel tree, so I admit I have a hard time believing it is actually > > > wrong, and I would appreciate extra explanations. > > > > There is this: > > > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/258149 > > > > Maybe target and/or compiler version specific ? > > Russell, can you explain? Is this an old gcc misbehavior which has been > fixed meanwhile, or...? > > Me, I can't see how a section attribute could apply to a variable type > in the first place, so I'd expect gcc to either transparently apply it > to the variable instead (which it apparently does for me) or emit a > warning. > > OTOH if the problem is real then a check for it should be added to > checkpatch.pl because I don't think a lot of people know about it. A > quick grep suggests that 29% of the use cases (1260 occurrences) have > it wrong. If it's gcc misbehaviour, then it's documented gcc misbehaviour, because my description in the above link comes from the GCC info pages. See: C Extensions -> Attribute Syntax This is because attributes can be either function attributes, variable attributes or type attributes. Which kind they are depends on where they are placed. When they are placed immediately after 'struct', 'enum' or 'union', or immediately after the closing brace of such a declaration, they are a type attribute. It may be possible to argue that a section-specifying attribute should be allowable as part of the type, but that doesn't appear to be the case (and it doesn't error out either.) The version online at: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Attribute-Syntax.html looks very similar to the version I've been reading for my gcc version, so I assume nothing has changed in this regard. _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
