* [PATCH] Isapnp warning
@ 2003-06-15 19:10 Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2003-06-15 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marcelo Tosatti, Alan Cox, perex
Cc: Linux Kernel Development, Geert Uytterhoeven
Isapnp: Kill warning if CONFIG_PCI is not set
--- linux-2.4.x/drivers/pnp/isapnp.c Sat Aug 17 14:10:39 2002
+++ linux-m68k-2.4.x/drivers/pnp/isapnp.c Fri Jun 6 12:27:42 2003
@@ -510,7 +510,9 @@
int dependent, int size)
{
unsigned char tmp[3];
+#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
int i;
+#endif
struct isapnp_irq *irq, *ptr;
isapnp_peek(tmp, size);
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Isapnp warning
@ 2003-08-29 14:49 Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2003-08-29 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marcelo Tosatti, perex; +Cc: Linux Kernel Development, Geert Uytterhoeven
Isapnp: Kill warning if CONFIG_PCI is not set, like it's done in 2.6.0.
--- linux-2.4.23-pre1/drivers/pnp/isapnp.c Sat Aug 17 14:10:39 2002
+++ linux-m68k-2.4.23-pre1/drivers/pnp/isapnp.c Fri Jun 6 12:27:42 2003
@@ -510,7 +510,6 @@
int dependent, int size)
{
unsigned char tmp[3];
- int i;
struct isapnp_irq *irq, *ptr;
isapnp_peek(tmp, size);
@@ -538,9 +537,13 @@
else
(*res)->irq = irq;
#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
- for (i=0; i<16; i++)
- if (irq->map & (1<<i))
- pcibios_penalize_isa_irq(i);
+ {
+ int i;
+
+ for (i=0; i<16; i++)
+ if (irq->map & (1<<i))
+ pcibios_penalize_isa_irq(i);
+ }
#endif
}
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Isapnp warning
@ 2003-06-15 18:36 Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-06-21 12:31 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2003-06-15 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds, perex; +Cc: Linux Kernel Development, Geert Uytterhoeven
Isapnp: Kill warning if CONFIG_PCI is not set
--- linux-2.5.x/drivers/pnp/resource.c Tue May 27 19:03:04 2003
+++ linux-m68k-2.5.x/drivers/pnp/resource.c Sun Jun 8 13:31:20 2003
@@ -97,7 +97,9 @@
int pnp_add_irq_resource(struct pnp_dev *dev, int depnum, struct pnp_irq *data)
{
+#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
int i;
+#endif
struct pnp_resources *res;
struct pnp_irq *ptr;
res = pnp_find_resources(dev,depnum);
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-15 18:36 Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2003-06-21 12:31 ` Alan Cox
2003-06-21 14:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-06-22 14:07 ` Daniel Phillips
0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2003-06-21 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Geert Uytterhoeven; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, perex, Linux Kernel Development
On Sul, 2003-06-15 at 19:36, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Isapnp: Kill warning if CONFIG_PCI is not set
>
> --- linux-2.5.x/drivers/pnp/resource.c Tue May 27 19:03:04 2003
> +++ linux-m68k-2.5.x/drivers/pnp/resource.c Sun Jun 8 13:31:20 2003
> @@ -97,7 +97,9 @@
>
> int pnp_add_irq_resource(struct pnp_dev *dev, int depnum, struct pnp_irq *data)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
> int i;
> +#endif
This is far uglier than te warning
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-21 12:31 ` Alan Cox
@ 2003-06-21 14:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-06-21 15:04 ` Sean Neakums
2003-06-21 19:51 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-22 14:07 ` Daniel Phillips
1 sibling, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2003-06-21 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, perex, Linux Kernel Development
On 21 Jun 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sul, 2003-06-15 at 19:36, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Isapnp: Kill warning if CONFIG_PCI is not set
> >
> > --- linux-2.5.x/drivers/pnp/resource.c Tue May 27 19:03:04 2003
> > +++ linux-m68k-2.5.x/drivers/pnp/resource.c Sun Jun 8 13:31:20 2003
> > @@ -97,7 +97,9 @@
> >
> > int pnp_add_irq_resource(struct pnp_dev *dev, int depnum, struct pnp_irq *data)
> > {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
> > int i;
> > +#endif
>
> This is far uglier than te warning
It depends on your goals. These warnings distract us from the real harmful
warnings. Will we ever have a kernel that compiles with -Werror?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-21 14:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2003-06-21 15:04 ` Sean Neakums
2003-06-21 19:51 ` Andrew Morton
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Sean Neakums @ 2003-06-21 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> writes:
> On 21 Jun 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Sul, 2003-06-15 at 19:36, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > Isapnp: Kill warning if CONFIG_PCI is not set
>> >
>> > --- linux-2.5.x/drivers/pnp/resource.c Tue May 27 19:03:04 2003
>> > +++ linux-m68k-2.5.x/drivers/pnp/resource.c Sun Jun 8 13:31:20 2003
>> > @@ -97,7 +97,9 @@
>> >
>> > int pnp_add_irq_resource(struct pnp_dev *dev, int depnum, struct pnp_irq *data)
>> > {
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
>> > int i;
>> > +#endif
>>
>> This is far uglier than te warning
>
> It depends on your goals. These warnings distract us from the real harmful
> warnings. Will we ever have a kernel that compiles with -Werror?
Unless GCC never emits an invalid warning, no.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-21 14:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-06-21 15:04 ` Sean Neakums
@ 2003-06-21 19:51 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-21 23:53 ` Linus Torvalds
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2003-06-21 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Geert Uytterhoeven; +Cc: alan, torvalds, perex, linux-kernel
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> > > int pnp_add_irq_resource(struct pnp_dev *dev, int depnum, struct pnp_irq *data)
> > > {
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
> > > int i;
> > > +#endif
> >
> > This is far uglier than te warning
>
> It depends on your goals. These warnings distract us from the real harmful
> warnings. Will we ever have a kernel that compiles with -Werror?
It would be nice. But as soon as we do that, some gcc guy will have a
brainfart and we'll get a whole new batch of warnings which we cannot turn
off. Again. I've been involved in projects where it was unacceptable to
upgrade the gcc version for this sole reason.
Meanwhile, let's do this:
diff -puN drivers/pnp/resource.c~misc6 drivers/pnp/resource.c
--- 25/drivers/pnp/resource.c~misc6 2003-06-21 12:47:23.000000000 -0700
+++ 25-akpm/drivers/pnp/resource.c 2003-06-21 12:47:44.000000000 -0700
@@ -97,7 +97,6 @@ int pnp_get_max_depnum(struct pnp_dev *d
int pnp_add_irq_resource(struct pnp_dev *dev, int depnum, struct pnp_irq *data)
{
- int i;
struct pnp_resources *res;
struct pnp_irq *ptr;
res = pnp_find_resources(dev,depnum);
@@ -113,9 +112,13 @@ int pnp_add_irq_resource(struct pnp_dev
else
res->irq = data;
#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
- for (i=0; i<16; i++)
- if (data->map & (1<<i))
- pcibios_penalize_isa_irq(i);
+ {
+ int i;
+
+ for (i=0; i<16; i++)
+ if (data->map & (1<<i))
+ pcibios_penalize_isa_irq(i);
+ }
#endif
return 0;
}
_
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-21 19:51 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2003-06-21 23:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-06-22 0:11 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2003-06-21 23:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven, alan, perex, linux-kernel
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, let's do this:
I'd prefer the C99 thing, ie
for (int i = xxx ...)
syntax. I know gcc-3.x supports it, maybe 2.96 does too? If so, we could
just add "-std=c99" or whatever, and start using that.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-21 23:53 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2003-06-22 0:11 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2003-06-22 1:41 ` Chris Wedgwood
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2003-06-22 0:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Andrew Morton, Geert Uytterhoeven, alan, perex, linux-kernel
Em Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 04:53:32PM -0700, Linus Torvalds escreveu:
>
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Meanwhile, let's do this:
>
> I'd prefer the C99 thing, ie
>
> for (int i = xxx ...)
>
> syntax. I know gcc-3.x supports it, maybe 2.96 does too? If so, we could
> just add "-std=c99" or whatever, and start using that.
Humm, I'd love to do that, i.e. to make gcc 3 required, lots of good stuff
like this one, anonymous structs, etc, etc, lots of stuff could be done in
an easier way, but are we ready to abandon gcc 2.95.*? Can anyone confirm
if gcc 2.96 accepts this?
- Arnaldo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-22 0:11 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
@ 2003-06-22 1:41 ` Chris Wedgwood
2003-06-22 1:43 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2003-06-22 8:39 ` Jörn Engel
0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wedgwood @ 2003-06-22 1:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton,
Geert Uytterhoeven, alan, perex, linux-kernel
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:11:01PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Humm, I'd love to do that, i.e. to make gcc 3 required, lots of good
> stuff like this one, anonymous structs, etc, etc, lots of stuff
> could be done in an easier way, but are we ready to abandon gcc
> 2.95.*? Can anyone confirm if gcc 2.96 accepts this?
What *requires* 2.96 still? Is it a large number of people or obscure
architecture?
--cw
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-22 1:41 ` Chris Wedgwood
@ 2003-06-22 1:43 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2003-06-22 2:17 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-22 8:49 ` Russell King
2003-06-22 8:39 ` Jörn Engel
1 sibling, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2003-06-22 1:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wedgwood
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton, Geert Uytterhoeven, alan, perex,
linux-kernel
Em Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:41:02PM -0500, Chris Wedgwood escreveu:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:11:01PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>
> > Humm, I'd love to do that, i.e. to make gcc 3 required, lots of good
> > stuff like this one, anonymous structs, etc, etc, lots of stuff
> > could be done in an easier way, but are we ready to abandon gcc
> > 2.95.*? Can anyone confirm if gcc 2.96 accepts this?
>
> What *requires* 2.96 still? Is it a large number of people or obscure
> architecture?
I don't know, I was just trying to figure out the impact of requiring gcc 3
to compile the kernel. I never used gcc 2.96 btw.
- Arnaldo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-22 1:43 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
@ 2003-06-22 2:17 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-22 2:27 ` Chris Wedgwood
` (2 more replies)
2003-06-22 8:49 ` Russell King
1 sibling, 3 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2003-06-22 2:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo; +Cc: cw, torvalds, geert, alan, perex, linux-kernel
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br> wrote:
>
> Em Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:41:02PM -0500, Chris Wedgwood escreveu:
> > On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:11:01PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >
> > > Humm, I'd love to do that, i.e. to make gcc 3 required, lots of good
> > > stuff like this one, anonymous structs, etc, etc, lots of stuff
> > > could be done in an easier way, but are we ready to abandon gcc
> > > 2.95.*? Can anyone confirm if gcc 2.96 accepts this?
> >
> > What *requires* 2.96 still? Is it a large number of people or obscure
> > architecture?
>
> I don't know, I was just trying to figure out the impact of requiring gcc 3
> to compile the kernel. I never used gcc 2.96 btw.
>
Compared to 2.95.3, gcc-3.3 takes 1.5x as long to compile, and produces a
kernel which is 200k larger.
It is simply worthless.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-22 2:17 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2003-06-22 2:27 ` Chris Wedgwood
2003-06-22 2:59 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-22 3:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-06-22 4:24 ` Paul Mackerras
2 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wedgwood @ 2003-06-22 2:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, torvalds, geert, alan, perex, linux-kernel
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 07:17:05PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Compared to 2.95.3, gcc-3.3 takes 1.5x as long to compile, and
> produces a kernel which is 200k larger.
Do we know why this is the case? I assume the fix is far from
trivial?
> It is simply worthless.
I stopped using 2.95.x recently because of miscompiles. Even vendor
compilers seemed to break at times :(
--cw
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-22 2:27 ` Chris Wedgwood
@ 2003-06-22 2:59 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-22 5:50 ` Herbert Xu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2003-06-22 2:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wedgwood; +Cc: acme, torvalds, geert, alan, perex, linux-kernel
Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 07:17:05PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Compared to 2.95.3, gcc-3.3 takes 1.5x as long to compile, and
> > produces a kernel which is 200k larger.
>
> Do we know why this is the case? I assume the fix is far from
> trivial?
Alignment mainly. It pads stuff all over the place. A lot of it can be
defeated - but not all, last time I looked.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-22 2:17 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-22 2:27 ` Chris Wedgwood
@ 2003-06-22 3:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-06-22 4:24 ` Paul Mackerras
2 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-06-22 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Cc: cw, torvalds, geert, alan, perex, linux-kernel
--Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com> wrote (on Saturday, June 21, 2003 19:17:05 -0700):
> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br> wrote:
>>
>> Em Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:41:02PM -0500, Chris Wedgwood escreveu:
>> > On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:11:01PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> >
>> > > Humm, I'd love to do that, i.e. to make gcc 3 required, lots of good
>> > > stuff like this one, anonymous structs, etc, etc, lots of stuff
>> > > could be done in an easier way, but are we ready to abandon gcc
>> > > 2.95.*? Can anyone confirm if gcc 2.96 accepts this?
>> >
>> > What *requires* 2.96 still? Is it a large number of people or obscure
>> > architecture?
>>
>> I don't know, I was just trying to figure out the impact of requiring gcc 3
>> to compile the kernel. I never used gcc 2.96 btw.
>>
>
> Compared to 2.95.3, gcc-3.3 takes 1.5x as long to compile, and produces a
> kernel which is 200k larger.
>
> It is simply worthless.
Agreed. 2.95.4 is also still the default debian compiler. Requiring
3.x seems like a bad plan, until they get it to a point where it's
actually better than 2.95, stable, and widely distributed. It's
definitely not there yet (seems kind of stable, but not the others).
M.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-22 2:17 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-22 2:27 ` Chris Wedgwood
2003-06-22 3:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
@ 2003-06-22 4:24 ` Paul Mackerras
2003-06-22 8:32 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Paul Mackerras @ 2003-06-22 4:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, cw, torvalds, geert, alan, perex, linux-kernel
Andrew Morton writes:
> Compared to 2.95.3, gcc-3.3 takes 1.5x as long to compile, and produces a
> kernel which is 200k larger.
I just tried it on PPC. Compared to 2.95.4, gcc-3.3 took 36% longer
to compile and produced a kernel which was 120k smaller.
Paul.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-22 4:24 ` Paul Mackerras
@ 2003-06-22 8:32 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-06-22 13:34 ` Daniel Phillips
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2003-06-22 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Mackerras
Cc: Andrew Morton, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, cw, Linus Torvalds,
Alan Cox, perex, Linux Kernel Development
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Andrew Morton writes:
> > Compared to 2.95.3, gcc-3.3 takes 1.5x as long to compile, and produces a
> > kernel which is 200k larger.
>
> I just tried it on PPC. Compared to 2.95.4, gcc-3.3 took 36% longer
> to compile and produced a kernel which was 120k smaller.
I have the same experience w.r.t. kernel size on MIPS, using 2.95.4 from Debian
woody on the target, and 3.2.2 for cross-compiling.
Perhaps the code increase is for CISC only?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-22 8:32 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2003-06-22 13:34 ` Daniel Phillips
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2003-06-22 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Geert Uytterhoeven, Paul Mackerras
Cc: Andrew Morton, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, cw, Linus Torvalds,
Alan Cox, perex, Linux Kernel Development
On Sunday 22 June 2003 10:32, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > Andrew Morton writes:
> > > Compared to 2.95.3, gcc-3.3 takes 1.5x as long to compile, and produces
> > > a kernel which is 200k larger.
> >
> > I just tried it on PPC. Compared to 2.95.4, gcc-3.3 took 36% longer
> > to compile and produced a kernel which was 120k smaller.
>
> I have the same experience w.r.t. kernel size on MIPS, using 2.95.4 from
> Debian woody on the target, and 3.2.2 for cross-compiling.
>
> Perhaps the code increase is for CISC only?
In another branch of this thread Andrew said it's due to extra alignment
padding (presumably with a view to improving execution speed) and Herbert Xu
mentioned out-of-line conditional branch compilation, both of which sould
reasonable to me. They also sound like they could or should be trivially
switchable.
Regards,
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-22 1:43 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2003-06-22 2:17 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2003-06-22 8:49 ` Russell King
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Russell King @ 2003-06-22 8:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Chris Wedgwood, Linus Torvalds,
Andrew Morton, Geert Uytterhoeven, alan, perex, linux-kernel
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 10:43:45PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> I don't know, I was just trying to figure out the impact of requiring gcc 3
> to compile the kernel. I never used gcc 2.96 btw.
So, for ARM, we end up with the following gcc versions which appear to
work:
- gcc 2.95.3 + patch
- gcc 2.95.4
- gcc 3.2.2 + patch
- gcc 3.2.3 + patch
- gcc 3.3
(Some of the gcc people may beg to differ, but the above list results
from many reports and real life experiences from several people.)
>From what I understand, the gcc people are not all that happy about
the gcc 3.2.x patch, based upon the fact that it has not been applied.
It is also possible that gcc 3.3 happens to work because the bug got
hidden by other changes, or, the real bug did get fixed. No one seems
to know. Certainly the bugzilla entry remains open and unresolved.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-22 1:41 ` Chris Wedgwood
2003-06-22 1:43 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
@ 2003-06-22 8:39 ` Jörn Engel
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jörn Engel @ 2003-06-22 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wedgwood
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton,
Geert Uytterhoeven, alan, perex, linux-kernel
On Sat, 21 June 2003 20:41:02 -0500, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:11:01PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>
> > Humm, I'd love to do that, i.e. to make gcc 3 required, lots of good
> > stuff like this one, anonymous structs, etc, etc, lots of stuff
> > could be done in an easier way, but are we ready to abandon gcc
> > 2.95.*? Can anyone confirm if gcc 2.96 accepts this?
>
> What *requires* 2.96 still? Is it a large number of people or obscure
> architecture?
Try these two litter things in Assembler code:
#define LONG_MACRO \
asm \
#ifdef something \
asm \
#else \
asm \
asm \
#endif \
asm
Compiles just fine with all 3.x I've tried.
jump 92f
...
81: ...
...
92 ...
Again, compiles just fine.
Both are clearly wrong and should not be in the source code. But
Assembler bugs are subtle, nasty and Code Checkers for Assembler are
rare. My vote is to keep 2.95+ support.
Jörn
--
"Error protection by error detection and correction."
-- from a university class
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-21 12:31 ` Alan Cox
2003-06-21 14:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2003-06-22 14:07 ` Daniel Phillips
2003-06-22 15:00 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2003-06-22 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox, Geert Uytterhoeven
Cc: Linus Torvalds, perex, Linux Kernel Development
Hi Alan,
On Saturday 21 June 2003 14:31, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sul, 2003-06-15 at 19:36, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Isapnp: Kill warning if CONFIG_PCI is not set
> >
> > --- linux-2.5.x/drivers/pnp/resource.c Tue May 27 19:03:04 2003
> > +++ linux-m68k-2.5.x/drivers/pnp/resource.c Sun Jun 8 13:31:20 2003
> > @@ -97,7 +97,9 @@
> >
> > int pnp_add_irq_resource(struct pnp_dev *dev, int depnum, struct pnp_irq *data)
> > {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
> > int i;
> > +#endif
>
> This is far uglier than te warning
How about:
#define if_pci(tokens...) tokens
int pnp_add_irq_resource(struct pnp_dev *dev, int depnum, struct pnp_irq *data)
{
if_pci(int i);
...
}
Admittedly uglier than just having the warning disabled by default.
Regards,
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
2003-06-22 14:07 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2003-06-22 15:00 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2003-06-22 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Development
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1199 bytes --]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 16:07:14 +0200, Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de>
wrote in message <200306221607.15232.phillips@arcor.de>:
> Hi Alan,
>
> On Saturday 21 June 2003 14:31, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Sul, 2003-06-15 at 19:36, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> How about:
>
> #define if_pci(tokens...) tokens
>
> int pnp_add_irq_resource(struct pnp_dev *dev, int depnum, struct pnp_irq *data)
> {
> if_pci(int i);
> ...
> }
>
> Admittedly uglier than just having the warning disabled by default.
Even whilest I don't like defining variables where I need them (at an
opening "{" or like in "for (int i, i < x, i++)" as Linus suggested it),
this is quite ugly, too. "if_pci(int i)" looks linke an uglyfied
function call, and even while being ugly, it should basically "work"
like a function call. Here, it doesn't, so I consider this a Bad Thing.
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak!
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(IRAQ_WAR_2 | DRM | TCPA));
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Isapnp warning
@ 2003-06-09 10:37 Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2003-06-09 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marcelo Tosatti, Alan Cox; +Cc: Linux Kernel Development, Geert Uytterhoeven
Isapnp: Kill warning if CONFIG_PCI is not set
--- linux-2.4.x/drivers/pnp/isapnp.c Sat Aug 17 14:10:39 2002
+++ linux-m68k-2.4.x/drivers/pnp/isapnp.c Fri Jun 6 12:27:42 2003
@@ -510,7 +510,9 @@
int dependent, int size)
{
unsigned char tmp[3];
+#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
int i;
+#endif
struct isapnp_irq *irq, *ptr;
isapnp_peek(tmp, size);
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-08-29 14:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-06-15 19:10 [PATCH] Isapnp warning Geert Uytterhoeven
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-08-29 14:49 Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-06-15 18:36 Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-06-21 12:31 ` Alan Cox
2003-06-21 14:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-06-21 15:04 ` Sean Neakums
2003-06-21 19:51 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-21 23:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-06-22 0:11 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2003-06-22 1:41 ` Chris Wedgwood
2003-06-22 1:43 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2003-06-22 2:17 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-22 2:27 ` Chris Wedgwood
2003-06-22 2:59 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-22 5:50 ` Herbert Xu
2003-06-22 3:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-06-22 4:24 ` Paul Mackerras
2003-06-22 8:32 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-06-22 13:34 ` Daniel Phillips
2003-06-22 8:49 ` Russell King
2003-06-22 8:39 ` Jörn Engel
2003-06-22 14:07 ` Daniel Phillips
2003-06-22 15:00 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2003-06-09 10:37 Geert Uytterhoeven
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 NNTP newsgroup(s).