* Fwd: Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt
@ 2010-03-26 23:32 David Daney
2010-03-26 23:35 ` Brian Budge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Daney @ 2010-03-26 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
Bah! here is the non bouncing version (I hope).
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:38:20 -0700
From: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
CC: trisha yad <trisha1march@gmail.com>, Jie Zhang
<jie@codesourcery.com>, gcc-help@gnu.org, arm-gnu@codesourcery.com
On 03/26/2010 10:27 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> trisha yad<trisha1march@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -fno-optimize-sibling-calls -O2 test.c
>> I can see Function name Convert to
>> 0000842c t T.12
>
> You still haven't explained what is wrong with that symbol. Why does
> it matter?
I thought I already said this, but here it is again:
Some broken Linux kernel build scripts flag the presence of these
symbols a something very bad. If you try building a kernel containing
these scripts, you might be lead to think that the end of the world is near.
Obviously the way to fix the problem is to change GCC so it doesn't
trigger the emission of these messages in the defective kernels. :-)
David Daney
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt
2010-03-26 23:32 Fwd: Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt David Daney
@ 2010-03-26 23:35 ` Brian Budge
2010-03-26 23:37 ` David Daney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Brian Budge @ 2010-03-26 23:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Daney; +Cc: gcc-help
Doesn't it seem like fixing the broken scripts might be better? And
if not, why not?
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> Bah! here is the non bouncing version (I hope).
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt
> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:38:20 -0700
> From: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
> To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
> CC: trisha yad <trisha1march@gmail.com>, Jie Zhang <jie@codesourcery.com>,
> gcc-help@gnu.org, arm-gnu@codesourcery.com
>
> On 03/26/2010 10:27 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> trisha yad<trisha1march@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -fno-optimize-sibling-calls -O2 test.c
>>> I can see Function name Convert to
>>> 0000842c t T.12
>>
>> You still haven't explained what is wrong with that symbol. Why does
>> it matter?
>
> I thought I already said this, but here it is again:
>
> Some broken Linux kernel build scripts flag the presence of these
> symbols a something very bad. If you try building a kernel containing
> these scripts, you might be lead to think that the end of the world is near.
>
> Obviously the way to fix the problem is to change GCC so it doesn't
> trigger the emission of these messages in the defective kernels. :-)
>
>
> David Daney
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt
2010-03-26 23:35 ` Brian Budge
@ 2010-03-26 23:37 ` David Daney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Daney @ 2010-03-26 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Budge; +Cc: gcc-help
On 03/26/2010 01:05 PM, Brian Budge wrote:
> Doesn't it seem like fixing the broken scripts might be better?
Probably you are right.
> And if not, why not?
>
No good reason that I can think of.
I would note, that the current Linux kernel HEAD does not suffer this
problem. There was however a window between when the bogus warning
messages were added to the kernel build scripts and the release of a GCC
version that triggered the issue. Once the kernel hackers realized
there was a problem, they fixed it. People using the kernel versions in
the window either have to use older GCCs or fix their build scripts if
they don't want to see the messages.
Fixing the kernel build scripts is not difficult, but I forgot what I
did, so it is left as an exercise for the enterprising reader.
David Daney
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, David Daney<ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
>> Bah! here is the non bouncing version (I hope).
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt
>> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:38:20 -0700
>> From: David Daney<ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
>> To: Ian Lance Taylor<iant@google.com>
>> CC: trisha yad<trisha1march@gmail.com>, Jie Zhang<jie@codesourcery.com>,
>> gcc-help@gnu.org, arm-gnu@codesourcery.com
>>
>> On 03/26/2010 10:27 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> trisha yad<trisha1march@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -fno-optimize-sibling-calls -O2 test.c
>>>> I can see Function name Convert to
>>>> 0000842c t T.12
>>>
>>> You still haven't explained what is wrong with that symbol. Why does
>>> it matter?
>>
>> I thought I already said this, but here it is again:
>>
>> Some broken Linux kernel build scripts flag the presence of these
>> symbols a something very bad. If you try building a kernel containing
>> these scripts, you might be lead to think that the end of the world is near.
>>
>> Obviously the way to fix the problem is to change GCC so it doesn't
>> trigger the emission of these messages in the defective kernels. :-)
>>
>>
>> David Daney
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-03-26 20:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-03-26 23:32 Fwd: Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt David Daney
2010-03-26 23:35 ` Brian Budge
2010-03-26 23:37 ` David Daney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).