Re: Release 2.21.1 ?

["H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:50:35AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > while handling several breakages in linux-next kernel, it showed PR
>> > gas/12519 (see [1]) is somehow incomplete as it gives no pointer to
>> > the symbol name in case of an error.
>> > "Mention symbol name in non-constant .size expression." (see [2]) as a
>> > follow-up patch definitely helps to enlighten developer's where to dig
>> > into occuring problems.
>> > "Revert the last change on gas/elf/bad-size.err." (see [3]) is a fixup to [2].
>> >
>> > It would be nice to see [2] and [3] backported to 2.21-branch.
>>
>> Why not.
>>
>> Does it make sense to generate a warning instead of an error in 2.21.1 for backward bug-compatibility ?
>> Alan, what's your opinion ?
>
> Well, it's plain wrong to accept bad expressions and have gas try to
> guess what typos mean, so I think it should be an error.  The size
> info matters to some people.  Ask gdb developers, or anyone writing
> code analysis and optimization tools.
>
> I also think it highly likely that new binutils and/or gcc will break
> kernel bisection in other areas.  For that reason I'm inclined to
> discount the kernel list histrionics over the .size fix.  Kernel
> kiddies are just going to have to learn to deal with toolchain
> evolution.
>

Can I apply my size error patch?

Thanks.


-- 
H.J.