Fwd: Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt

Fwd: Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt

[David Daney]

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

Re: Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt

[Brian Budge]

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
>

Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt

[David Daney]

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
>>
>