Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...>
Cc: Alistair John Strachan <alistair@...>, Chris Knadle <Chris.Knadle@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...>, <venkatesh.pallipadi@...>, <davem@...>, <trini@...>, <mingo@...>, <tglx@...>, <hpa@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <suresh.b.siddha@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>
Date: Friday, May 2, 2008 - 10:57 am

Sam Ravnborg wrote:

I think the problem is that main() would have no call to func(), not 
that it wouldn't build.

Does making func noinline fix it?  I wonder if we should make __weak 
implicitly make the function noinline too.

    J
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem, Chris Knadle, (Thu May 1, 7:55 pm)
Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem, Alistair John Strachan, (Fri May 2, 5:55 am)
Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem, Sven-Haegar Koch, (Fri May 2, 8:40 am)
Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem, Sam Ravnborg, (Fri May 2, 6:43 am)
Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem, Alistair John Strachan, (Fri May 2, 7:48 am)
Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem, Sam Ravnborg, (Fri May 2, 9:57 am)
Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Fri May 2, 10:57 am)
Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem, Jakub Jelinek, (Fri May 2, 10:11 am)
Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem, Alistair John Strachan, (Fri May 2, 11:26 am)
Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem, Miquel van Smoorenburg, (Fri May 2, 5:19 am)