[PATCH][2.5.74] correct gcc bug comment in <linux/spinlock.h>

[PATCH][2.5.74] correct gcc bug comment in <linux/spinlock.h>

[Mikael Pettersson]

Linus,

This patch updates include/linux/spinlock.h's comment regarding gcc
bugs for empty struct initializers, to correctly state that the bug
is present also in 2.95.x and at least early versions of 2.96 (as
reported by one Mandrake user).

/Mikael

--- linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h.~1~	2003-07-03 12:32:46.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h	2003-07-03 16:07:59.772534704 +0200
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@
 	} while (0)
 #else
 /*
- * gcc versions before ~2.95 have a nasty bug with empty initializers.
+ * gcc versions up to 2.95, and early versions of 2.96, have a nasty bug with empty initializers.
  */
 #if (__GNUC__ > 2)
   typedef struct { } spinlock_t;

Re: [PATCH][2.5.74] correct gcc bug comment in <linux/spinlock.h>

[Russell King]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:08:11PM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> Linus,
> 
> This patch updates include/linux/spinlock.h's comment regarding gcc
> bugs for empty struct initializers, to correctly state that the bug
> is present also in 2.95.x and at least early versions of 2.96 (as
> reported by one Mandrake user).
> 
> /Mikael
> 
> --- linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h.~1~	2003-07-03 12:32:46.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h	2003-07-03 16:07:59.772534704 +0200
> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@
>  	} while (0)
>  #else
>  /*
> - * gcc versions before ~2.95 have a nasty bug with empty initializers.
> + * gcc versions up to 2.95, and early versions of 2.96, have a nasty bug with empty initializers.
>   */
>  #if (__GNUC__ > 2)
>    typedef struct { } spinlock_t;

This also isn't that clear (does it mean up to 2.95.0 but not including
2.95.1 etc.)  Also, we don't build with gcc < 2.95 anyway, so there's
no need to mention anything older.  This removes the doubt:

"All gcc 2.95 versions and early versions of gcc 2.96 have a nasty bug with
 empty initializers."

-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
             http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

Re: [PATCH][2.5.74] correct gcc bug comment in <linux/spinlock.h>

[Mikael Pettersson]

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:42:04 +0100, Russell King wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:08:11PM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>> Linus,
>> 
>> This patch updates include/linux/spinlock.h's comment regarding gcc
>> bugs for empty struct initializers, to correctly state that the bug
>> is present also in 2.95.x and at least early versions of 2.96 (as
>> reported by one Mandrake user).
>> 
>> /Mikael
>> 
>> --- linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h.~1~	2003-07-03 12:32:46.000000000 +0200
>> +++ linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h	2003-07-03 16:07:59.772534704 +0200
>> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@
>>  	} while (0)
>>  #else
>>  /*
>> - * gcc versions before ~2.95 have a nasty bug with empty initializers.
>> + * gcc versions up to 2.95, and early versions of 2.96, have a nasty bug with empty initializers.
>>   */
>>  #if (__GNUC__ > 2)
>>    typedef struct { } spinlock_t;
>
>This also isn't that clear (does it mean up to 2.95.0 but not including
>2.95.1 etc.)  Also, we don't build with gcc < 2.95 anyway, so there's
>no need to mention anything older.  This removes the doubt:
>
>"All gcc 2.95 versions and early versions of gcc 2.96 have a nasty bug with
> empty initializers."

Agreed. More precision is better. Updated patch below.

/Mikael

--- linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h.~1~	2003-07-03 12:32:46.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h	2003-07-04 02:01:05.982375152 +0200
@@ -144,7 +144,8 @@
 	} while (0)
 #else
 /*
- * gcc versions before ~2.95 have a nasty bug with empty initializers.
+ * All gcc 2.95 versions and early versions of 2.96 have a nasty bug
+ * with empty initializers.
  */
 #if (__GNUC__ > 2)
   typedef struct { } spinlock_t;